Bible exposed

 

Home

CONSPIRACY  
www.conspiracee.com 

Health v medicine  
www.cellsalts.net
  
www.soiltheory.com

Religion  

The Bible exposed  

Biblical contradictions  

The Jesus myth 

US Govt's agenda  

The most evil people in the world 

Fake apocalypse 

Billy Graham   

Clarifying what is proof  

Council of Nicea 325 AD      

Reincarnation & karma  

Theosophy 

Prophecy 

Rationality 

Universal laws  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Up ] [ Bible exposed ] The Jesus myth ] Piso ] Rationality ] Universal laws ] Prophecy ] Theocracy ] Apollonius of Tyana ] Billy Graham ] The most evil people ] Lobsang Rampa ] Occult ] Theosophy ]

 

 

Let's face it, the Bible contains many contradictions, depends on "experts" to interpret it, every different sect finds a different way of interpreting it and they all claim to be right.

Biblical contradictions website
http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/index.html
  [closed down]
This website documents 192 biblical discrepancies.  

Try http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#introduction 
and http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/errancy.html (bible errancy)

 

The Bible Exposed: Parts 1, 2 & 3 
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/3138/bibleex1.htm
i.e., not 100% inspired.

 

Bible not inspired but still has some historical significance
Who Were The Israelites?

by Brian Desborough
http://www.briansbetterworld.com/articles/whoweretheisraelites.html
Although the Bible displays many inaccuracies, therefore invalidating any pretence to being a divinely-inspired work, we should not ignore the Bible as a historical source, for it contains many nuggets of historical truth: it therefore behooves us not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

The Evil Bible website
http://www.evilbible.com/
For far too long priests and preachers have completely ignored the vicious criminal acts that the Bible promotes.  The so called “God” of the Bible makes Osama Bin Laden look like a Boy Scout.  This God, according to the Bible, is directly responsible for many mass-murders, rapes, pillage, plunder, slavery, child abuse and killing, not to mention the killing of unborn children.  I have included references to the Biblical passages, so grab your Bible and follow along.  You can also follow along with on-line Bibles such as BibleStudyTools.net or SkepticsAnnotatedBible.com.

 

 

Biblical Violence, Hate, and Immorality
http://culturalvision.net/html/biblical_violence_hate_and_imm.html 

Biblical Morals and Commands

What might be most frightening about the Bible is that if you Believe in it, you are commanded by God, Creator of the Universe, to follow the Word of God. But if a person in our society were to follow the Word of God of the Old Testament, that person would soon be put in prison. 

Here is a sampling:

If a woman was not a virgin when she married, you should stone her to death. This is part of Mosaic Law. (Deuteronomy 22:21) And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast. (Leviticus 20:16) If your child hits you or swears at you, you are to put that child to death. (Leviticus 20:9) A stubborn and rebellious son should be stoned to death by all the men of his city. (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) It is a good practice to sell your daughter into slavery. (Exodus 21:7) Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. (Psalm 137:9)

 

 

 

The Synthesis of Christianity, or

The real reason for the war between the Romans and the Jews
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_piso03.htm

How and Why Ancient Rulers Needed to Create a Universal Religion

It has been my recent privilege to receive a manuscript by Roman Piso, entitled “The Synthesis of Christianity.” I have read dozens of books about the history of Christianity, but this one is by far the most unique.

Perhaps Piso’s quote from Abelard Reuchlin sums up his thesis best:

“It was Flavius Josephus who was the creator of Jesus.”

Piso spent many years researching the fraud of Christianity. It seems that many scholars had previously come to the conclusion that Josephus had indeed created Christianity.

This book, however, presents the authorship of the New Testament as regards the Roman Piso family, the antiquity of which goes back to ancient Rome. Members of the royal Piso family were the composers of the New Testament. The reasons are discussed in the “Piso Theory” and the “Royal Supremacy Theory.”

In a nutshell, the Royals of ancient times invented and promoted superstitions for the purpose of controlling people. The Royals were the only ones who were literate, and who had freedoms, including the freedom of speech. Promoting religion for the purpose of control was the duty and responsibility of the Royals, who were atheists. They knew there were no gods, for they had created them. The main control they sought to preserve was slavery.

Intricate family archives kept track of ever evolving dogmas. Later writers had access to earlier records for their creations. Through the centuries the Royals carefully guarded their great hoax and seemed to thoroughly enjoy the creation of the masterpiece. As Piso describes it,

“being an ancient author was like being in on a long, long standing perpetually running inside joke.”

Piso discusses the “penis worship” which is the truth of the New Testament, the “number system” used by the Royals, fascinating members of the Piso family lineage, intricate historical accounts, and the political reasons behind the Christian Myth. The Royals, of course, took pseudonyms for the authorship of their creations. Thus the alias Flavius Josephus. Piso’s evidence is clearly and superbly presented and meticulously documented.

I wonder if the Royals had any idea of the viscous quality of what they created—their sick joke. Realizing who was responsible for the creation of such a monstrous lie certainly won’t endear the Royal Pisos to you, but you’ll love this interesting and important book.


Specific Items in History Related to the "Synthesis Of Christianity"

A CHECKLIST OF WHAT WE HAVE FOUND TO BE THE CASE

(1) Emperors were NOT made of common persons. They were in fact all of royal families regardless of what "history" tries or attempts to make the reader believe. This is because of the 'controlled' environment that existed at the time, which is also listed and explained.

(2) As such, there were no "dynasties" as we have been led to think of them. All Roman rulers were inter-related. There were 'branches' of the same family that switched off or took turns ruling so that it appeared that anyone could become emperor, etc. In other words, a deliberate 'facade' was created and maintained for specific purposes.

(3) All religious leaders were closely related to royalty and of royal houses, such as Popes, 'saints' and church writers, as well as 'historians'. No one was allowed to write for the public except royals and their close relatives. This was because it was a dangerous thing for royalty to allow freedom of speech to the common people. If the common person was allowed to speak freely to the masses and they somehow found out or deduced the situation, that would threaten the whole system that was in place and that had been in place for thousands of years.

(4) They all (rulers, writers, etc.) made use of alias names in order to hide their true identities and to be able to give all of the information about themselves and their families, ancestors, etc. that they wanted to and still not let the cat out of the bag. They made it so that we would have to deduce the truth from what they left. They made us (they thought) dependent upon THEM and what they wrote in order to find out and 'confirm' the truth to the degree that THEY allowed us to. This, is what they refer to as the 'Grace' of god. (sic) However, they could not know that we would later have other means in which to make determinations regarding this - and we will discuss that later.

(5) They made use of a wide variety of methods and means in which to control and manipulate the masses. Persons usually refer to this subject as the 'Pisonian Conspiracy', which is NOT a title that we gave this - but rather what the ancient 'historian' Tacitus called it. The Pisos happened to be behind the composition of the New Testament, but the Pisos were not alone in this. In reality, this was simply an effort on the part of all royals who wanted to preserve and continue the practice of slavery. At the time, there were several royal houses at odds with each other over this issue and a long all-out war resulted. The New Testament was simply a 'solution' for the royals who wanted to retain the practice of slavery as well as to increase their power and control over the masses via ideologies given out in the New Testament in rhetorical form. They made full use of all that they had put into the New Testament.

(6) They kept their own private records or archives as to the truth behind all of the works that each particular family branch had written for public consumption. They refer to them in a number of ways, and it becomes evident that later writers made use of records from within their own family archives to create their later works from.

(7) They (the persons who wrote the New Testament, etc.) were able to do these things because of the pre-existing mechanism or system of control over the masses which we call "the closed environment", but which is also known as a "controlled" environment. Which simply stated means that ONLY royals could write works for public consumption - and even then only with permission and approval of a royal counsel. There were NO common persons with the ability to communicate with the masses at large. No freedom of speech. Everything that was written of for the masses were carefully conceived, created, approved of by royalty and had motives behind them for being written.

(8) The main reasons for the New Testament being written was:

a) as a means by which to preserve and continue the practice of slavery and

b) to disseminate rhetorical ideologies to the masses that would make them more easy to control and manipulate. And,

c) to be a 'universal' or 'catholic' religion so as to extend their power and control over the masses to other conquered countries and to more easily conquer other countries.

They aimed at conquering India for example, which they never really did despite their efforts to do so. They were ALWAYS aiming at extending Roman boundaries.

(9) There was a long all-out war going on between royal houses over the issue of slavery before and as the New Testament was being written. At several points the Romans could very well have LOST the war* and they (the Romans and their allies) were in desperate need for more and better means with which to

a) put down revolt of the slaves themselves and make them complacent and as 'content' as possible in their situation - even going as far as to offer them (in the NT) life after death and a 'reward' in heaven.

b) They needed to make their own military stronger, loyal, and braver, as well as filled with HATE for the enemy; "the Jews."

c) They needed to offer the same 'life after death' to their own soldiers so that they would not be afraid to die in battle. And,

d) they needed a means by which to console the widows and other relatives of soldiers who would fall or die in battle (as well as 'hope' for the crippled, etc.). All of this was done via the rhetoric and ideology that they placed into the New Testament. And,

e) they could NEVER let the masses know that they, the ROMAN royalty manufactured this great lie - so they HAD to appear to be either indifferent and/or non-approving of it (the Christian religion and Christians).

The only way that you would ever know that it was them was in knowing all of the facts that they had hidden - because those facts reveal their motives, and that is when the truth is finally discovered.

 

An example that stands out is Pliny the Younger's epistles to the emperor Trajan regarding his 'questions' as to what to do about or with those claiming to be 'Christians'. This is magnificent rhetoric. He ends up,

a) advertising the religion,

b) making Christians appear to be 'martyrs', and

c) effectively hiding the fact that they (the Romans) actually 'created' the religion!

(10) The 'historians'

These are the persons who wrote the works that we depend upon to tell us what happened. Yet, we have discovered that they,

a) were NOT who they led us to believe they were, and

b) they deliberately mislead us and lied to us in order to hide the truth.

Only the royals and their close relatives were allowed to write public works, and THEY are the ONLY ones that are referred to in 'history' when they spoke of peoples or sects. The common person was not worthy of mention in history except in general groups such as 'legions' or such and then nearly always, if not always, in order to 'glorify' or otherwise refer to the leaders of those legions, etc.

(11) One of the most important things to know in order for a person to work their way through the maze or 'puzzle' of ancient history in New Testament times is to know just who the 'Jews' were at any given time and place. This means knowing all about each of the sects in the most specific detail and to do this one must do a lot of reading and deducing. However, once this IS known, one is then able to discover so much more than before. The 'historians' played the 'shell game' when it came to the 'Jews'. They often refer to them in general terms and hardly ever make distinctions about just WHICH sect of the Jews they are speaking of at any given time. This means that one must use all available facts in order to deduce that and make the distinctions for themselves. We explain in our findings just who the 'Jews' were at any given time and place. And this will definitely help future researchers.

(12) *Yes, as mentioned, the Romans came close several times to losing the war. There were several very important factors that could have well meant that the outcome may have been different. One of those things was that Nero had executed Gaius Piso and others who were allied to their cause. Before Nero, Claudius had also executed a number of the Pisos and their allies. But Arrius Piso and others of the Piso family were left along with many of their allies. Then, as a Roman general Arrius Piso was very nearly captured and/or killed many times when he came to the Temple and various meetings with the Pharisees for the purpose of trying to persuade them to go along with him and his allies to change over to his new religion. He could have been easily killed then and that would have probably been the end of that part of the war and much of the later escalation of the war may not have ever happened.

In addition to this, Arrius Piso was nearly killed when his horse fell on him. It did not kill him, but it did crush his leg and made him 'lame' in that one leg. The extent of his injury and recovery is not known for certain at this time. Then, at the Pass of Beth Horon, he was ambushed by his Jewish enemies (the Pharisees) and was nearly caught and killed there. He was truly the cat with nine lives! In every battle that he was in, HE was the 'prize' that was sought by his enemies. It was known to his enemies that it was vital to stop him from ever doing what he had planned to do - and that was to enslave all of humanity other than royals into a perpetual ignorance and to 'dumb' down the common persons with rhetoric so as to enslave them with rhetorical ideologies.

(13) Genetic Testing

This is what we think will be the final indisputable proof regarding this. As we stated, the authors of 'history' claimed to be persons other than who they really were and the same was true of those who were emperors (as well as both earlier and later royalty). We also said that 'saints' were close relatives of these same persons. These things can be verified now with genetic testing. In fact, we are certain that in time, enough of this sort of evidence will be compiled to show just how accurate our reconstructed genealogy of these persons really are - and we are very anxious to see this! Because we have followed various 'rules' in order to reconstruct their family tress, 'rules' that were made and left by those very persons!

 

For instance, they left hints and clues to follow in order to find the facts that would help a person to make those reconstructions. One instance comes to mind and that is of the emperor Constantine's claims of descent from 'Claudius'. He means, of course, the emperor Claudius II 'Gothicus'. We have examined this in very fine detail and have concluded that this was only possible in ONE way. And because that is the case, that IS his actual and true descent from Claudius II 'Gothicus'.

However, to find that line of descent a vast knowledge of many things that may otherwise seem unrelated must be known. And, you have to know the line of descent of Claudius II Gothicus as well. This is not at all 'easy' and it IS very easy to make mistakes when reconstructing these lines of descent. It was made difficult on purpose.

 

Bear in mind that these persons did not have to work for a living, they did not have television and had little else to do but to make these 'amusements' for themselves and their other royal relatives. Being an ancient author was like being 'in' on a long, long standing perpetually running 'inside joke'. And it was treated seriously and as a 'duty', but one that the authors could not help but have 'fun' with as they created their works.

 

 

 

 

 

BIBLE 101: NOT ALL IT'S CRACKED UP TO BE
http://www.davidicke.net/religiousfrauds/christianity/bible101.html 

GLOBAL NEWS NET Newsbreaks.Analysis.Commentary. "Awareness Leading to Solutions"

Global News Net is a forum whose mission is to present diverse information, commentary and analysis for the purpose of promoting solution-oriented awareness and introspection leading to informed choices.

August 8, 2002

BIBLE 101: NOT ALL IT'S CRACKED UP TO BE (Printed on Friday, August 02, 2002 in YellowTimes.org) )

By John Brand, D.Min., J.D.

A gentleman who has read some of my articles is very much concerned about the state of my soul as well as the soul of YellowTimes.org publisher Erich Marquardt. He suggests that if we do not believe in the errant word of God, we will certainly wind up in hell. I have always replied rather politely to his e-mails. Yet, my first impulse was to quote the Bible back to him: "Do not judge, so that you may not be judged." (Matthew 7:1) That is just one passage of many in which folks are warned not to judge others.

My second impulse is to point out to him that we are in deep trouble if the entire Bible is the inerrant word of God. Some of the most lurid stuff is found in the pages of the "Good Book." If the bare metal breast of a lifeless statue offends the Attorney General, he would probably have a serious fit if he ever were to read the 23rd Chapter of Ezekiel. The prophet recounts the fact that the tribes of Israel and Judah had not been faithful to God. The following are the supposed inerrant words of God reported in verses 18 - 21.

"When she (Judah) carried on the nakedness, I turned in disgust from her, as I had turned from her sister (Israel). Yet she increased her whorings, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the whore in the land of Egypt and lusted after her paramours there, whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose emission was like that of stallions. Thus you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when the Egyptians fondled your bosom and caressed your young breasts."

Boy, this God is really expressive. In view of the fact that the popular image we have of God is one of decency and decorum, propriety and purity, I have a hard time accepting that kind of language as the inerrant word of God. It would make the ladies in most Sunday School classes blush to high heavens. And yet, fundamentalists insist this indeed is the true, eternal, and righteous word of God.

And then there is this story in Judges, chapters 19 - 21.

Let me very briefly restate it. I am not taking literary license with a single word. A Levite, name not given, from the hill country of Ephraim, had a concubine whose home was in Bethlehem in Judea. (Whoa, well a little editorializing is all right. Does that mean that the inerrant word of God allows me to have a concubine? My wife can't complain about my request. After all, concubinage is ordained in the inerrant word.) One day the aforementioned lady got her nose out of joint and went back home to her Dad. Hubby followed her intending to sweet-talk her and bring her back.

He arrived at his father-in-law's house (the woman in question in a later verse is called the Levite's wife, so I guess we can call her Dad the man's father-in-law) and the two men ate and drank. They ate and drank for several days! (So, the inerrant word suggests that partying is o.k. I like that. The Biblical God takes on a bit of Bacchus's character here. I wonder if the Puritans knew that?) Anyway, time for partying was over.

The Levite and his concubine/wife left for the hill country. At night they stopped in the village of Gibeah, home to some members of the tribe of Benjamin.

The Levite and his concubine/wife were seated in the town square when an old man invited them to spend the night. The offer of hospitality was accepted. Again we are told that host and guest drank and ate. While they were having a good time, a perverse group of citizens banged on the door demanding that the host turn the guest over to them "so that we may have intercourse with him." (Judges 19:22) The old man refused because as polite and decent host he simply could not honor their request. He continued in v. 24, "Here are my virgin daughters and his concubine; let me bring them out now. Ravish them and do whatever you want to them."

Now this must really be exemplary moral behavior. The father protects his guest but is quite willing to have his daughters and his guest's concubine raped. There is not a word of God expressing his disapproval of the old man's offer. This, according to the reader who wants to save my soul, is the inerrant word of God. It is also the inerrant word to Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and who knows how many other millions of Americans who have bought into the fairy tale of the infallibility of the Bible without ever having read the book. But wait, it gets worse.

The Levite pushes his concubine out the door and she was raped and abused all night long. (v. 25) In the morning her master/husband (what do you call the man who has a concubine? I really don't know) saw her lying at the door. He said, "Get up, we are going." When she did not respond, he put her on a donkey and proceeded to go home.

Sometime later it dawned on him that the lady was dead.

So after he got home, he cut her body into twelve pieces, limb by limb, and sent his servants to each of the twelve tribes of Israel with the message that the vile acts of the Benjaminites cried out for justice. Of course, not a word was said that he pushed her out the door knowing full well that the men who demanded to have sexual fun with him would not have a prayer meeting with the young lady.

Well, the furor of this affair caused a terrible war that caused the death of thousands upon thousands. And then in the end, in God's name, the city of Gibeah was burned. On God's orders all the men, women, and children, as well as all animals were killed.

To completely avenge the death of the concubine, some of the other towns of the tribe of Benjamin were also torched.

Now here is a sleeper. Six hundred Benjaminites escaped. After a few months, everybody's blood had cooled down.

It was discovered that these men did not have any prospects of getting married because all the women of their tribe had been killed. So the elders of the tribe of Israel, with God's approval one must assume, authorized the surviving Gibeonites to kidnap some women from Shiloh to take as their wives. Everybody lived happily ever after.

This is supposed to be the inerrant word of God? Come on, I have higher morals than that.



Chapter 15 of I Samuel presents a rather weird picture of the deity.

The prophet Samuel claims that God ordered him to anoint Saul as King over Israel. In the same breath, he orders Saul, in God's name, to attack the Amalekites "and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." Talk about a bloodbath!

Well, Saul fought a victorious campaign and started to implement God's commandment to slaughter one and all.

But Saul was no dummy. He saved the best of the sheep and the cattle, the fatlings, the lambs and all that was valuable. Knowing something about international politics, Saul was also clever enough not to kill Agag, the king of the Amalekites. One never knows when a former enemy might prove to be an asset. After all, both Germany and Japan, our archenemies about sixty years ago, are now our buddies. Saul just anticipated international diplomacy by about 3,000 years.

Well, Samuel, even without modern hearing aids, heard the bleating of sheep and the lowing of cattle. He got pretty mad and started to berate Saul. "Damned," (this is my rendition of what he said to the king) "the Lord told you to kill everybody and everything. And what in the hell did you do, you ingrate? You take it upon yourself to defy God's word." Well, Saul could not stand the prophet's disapproval and confessed that he was a sinner by not chopping off all heads.

Saul was particularly contrite because Samuel threatened to dispose the King and anoint someone else in Saul's place. That really put Saul into a repentant mood. One assumes that to glorify God, Saul did go ahead and kill all the animals. It does not say that in the Bible but I assume that is what happened, particularly in view of what happens next.

Samuel demanded that King Agag be brought before him. Samuel said to the King: "As your sword has made women childless, so your mother shall be childless among women. And Samuel hewed Agag to pieces before the Lord in Gilgal." (v. 33) Can't you just hear all the angels in heaven breaking out in the Hallelujah Chorus? How happy one and all must have been to see the blood spurting from Agog's severed head.

Now if that is the 24-karat image of God, the genuine sterling silver image, recorded in an inerrant book, I claim that I would make a better God than that caricature. That brutality does not reflect an eternal essence. It does reflect tribal ethos of about 3,000 years ago. I might add, the tribal ethos that hasn't changed all that much. By God, we want bin Laden!

We'll hack the S.O.B. to pieces in the name of all that is holy and honorable.

The New Testament presents its own particular problems calling into question whether the Bible can really be said to be the inerrant word of God. Colossians 4:1 states my concerns most clearly, "Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly." Not a word is said against the practice of slavery. To be sure, passages in the New Testament enjoin believers to treat their slaves in a humane manner but there is no word against the institution of slavery. Col 3:11 states that in the "renewal" there is no difference among classes of people such as Greeks, Jews, barbarians, Scythians, slave and free. But nothing is said about the practice of slavery itself. I Corinthians 12:13 repeats the same thought.

There is to be no difference among believers but again we find no injunction against slavery. It is somewhat difficult for me to consider a book to be the inerrant word of God that does not raise its voice against slavery but by implication condones the practice.

Another serious problem is posed in some passages of the New Testament that totally and unconditionally erase any trace of personal freedom in one's quest for a deeper meaning of life. Romans 8:29-30 states, "For those whom he (God) foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn within a large family. And those whom he predestined he also called. And those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified."

This express suppression of human will is further underlined in 9:16 of the same book: "So it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who shows mercy."

This last statement is particularly meaningless. If human will is excluded from the ultimate and final decision regarding one's fate and destiny, why would God have to show mercy? He already, according to Paul's writings, has decided whose dice will roll a seven or an eleven and whose will come up snake eyes or double sixes. So what is the place of mercy in a predetermined game? Mercy is needed if snake eyes are rolled and God says, "Oh, what the heck, give the poor sucker a chance" and he changes the roll into a seven. But there is no leeway here. God determined a long time ago who is going the win the pot and who will be left destitute. Such nonsense does not reflect inerrancy. Come on, now. I said "win the pot" not smoke it.

One final passage calling into question that God is the authentic author of these 66 books written over about 1,000 years. We have heard a lot from religious fundamentalists about wanting The Ten Commandments plastered all over this country. For openers, if they really believe that these injunctions came from God himself then all these Bible thumping folks will have to come out strongly against the death penalty. Exodus 20:13, "You shall not murder."

No place does it say that State sanctioned murder is not murder. Now the Bible, as we have seen with Samuel and Agog, is full of killing and murder and mayhem done in God's name. But the Commandment says, "Don't." Our President said that Jesus is his philosopher. Yet, he loves the death penalty. Doesn't make sense, does it?

But the Sixth Commandment is not my main point. What for heaven's sake kind of a deity is it that would say something like this: "For I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of the parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing mercy to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments." (Exodus 20: 5,6) Come on now! I don't even know who any of my 16 great-great-grandparents were. If one of them said, "Damn you God!" I am to be held liable for his apostasy! That would be a really neurotic God who holds his grudges that long.

By the same token, if a truly faithful person, 1000 generations from now has a descendent who is totally ungodly, totally evil, totally sinful God promises to be kind to him. Surely, Adolf, Joe (Stalin) and Benito must have had somebody 1000 generations ago who was a pretty God-fearing character. One thousand generations ago is about 20,000 years. In that period of time one has accumulated a lot of ancestors. According to Scripture, Adolf, Joe, and Benito go free.

That doesn't make any sense to me. Only if one checks one's brains in the narthex of the nearest church can one subscribe to the idea that Scripture is inerrant.

So, those of you who want to save my soul and those of others, start reading the Bible with your brains intact.

If you really believe the Scriptures you would learn that one is to "love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength." (Mark 12:30, Matthew 22:37 and Luke 10:27 and sundry other passages in the Old Testament.)

****** [John Brand is a Purple Heart, Combat Infantry veteran of World War II. He received his Juris Doctor degree at Northwestern University and a Master of Theology and a Doctor of Ministry at Southern Methodist University. He served as a Methodist minister for 19 years, was Vice President, Birkman & Associates, Industrial Psychologists, and concluded his career as Director, Organizational and Human Resources, Warren-King Enterprises, an independent oil and gas company. He is the author of Shaking the Foundations.

John Brand encourages your comments: jbrand@YellowTimes.org

****** GNN is grateful to www.YellowTimes.org for permission to reprint this article. Many more fine articles by John Brand and the Yellow Times staff are archived at the Yellow Times website.

****** Global News Net is a free newsletter published by Dandelion Enterprises, Inc., Tempe, Arizona.

If others wish to subscribe to the free Global News Net newsletter, please have them click on global_news_net-subscribe@yahoogroups.com .

For archived issues of Global News Net, Archives GNN

With the exception of articles and other input bearing the by-line of Carol Adler, President of Dandelion Enterprises, Inc. and owner of Global News Net, the material presented in the GNN newsletters does not necessarily reflect the opinions and outlook of Dandelion Enterprises, Inc.

website: Dandelion Books

 

Who Really Was King James
author unknown

For the last three centuries Protestants have fancied themselves the heirs of the Reformation, the Puritans, the Calvinists, and the Pilgrims who landed at Plymouth Rock. This assumption is one of history's greatest ironies. Today, Protestants laboring under that assumption use the King James Bible. Most of the new Bibles such as the Revised Standard Version are simply updates of the King James.

The irony is that none of the groups named in the preceding paragraph used a King James Bible nor would they have used it if it had been given to them free. The Bible in use by those groups, until it went out of print in 1644, was the Geneva Bible. The first Geneva Bible, both Old and New Testaments, was first published in English in 1560 in what is now Geneva, Switzerland. William Shakespeare, John Bunyan, John Milton, the Pilgrims who landed on Plymouth Rock in 1620, and other luminaries of that era used the Geneva Bible exclusively.

Until he had his own version named after him, so did King James I of England. James I later tried to disclaim any knowledge of the Geneva Bible, though he quoted the Geneva Bible in his own writings. As a Professor Eadie reported it:

"...his virtual disclaimer of all knowledge up to a late period of the Genevan notes and version was simply a bold, unblushing falsehood, a clumsy attempt to sever himself and his earlier Scottish beliefs and usages that he might win favor with his English churchmen."

The irony goes further. 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.

The King James Bible was, and is for all practical purposes, a government publication. There were several reasons for the King James Bible being a government publication. First, King James I of England was a devout believer in the "divine right of kings," a philosophy ingrained in him by his mother, Mary Stuart. Mary Stuart may have been having an affair with her Italian secretary, David Rizzio, at the time she conceived James. There is a better than even chance that James was the product of adultery. Apparently, enough evidence of such conduct on the part of Mary Stuart and David Rizzio existed to cause various Scot nobles, including Mary's own husband, King Henry, to drag David Rizzio from Mary's supper table and execute him. The Scot nobles hacked and slashed at the screaming Rizzio with knives and swords, and then threw him off a balcony to the courtyard below where he landed with a sickening smack. In the phrase of that day, he had been scotched.

Mary did have affairs with other men, such as the Earl of Bothwell. She later tried to execute her husband in a gunpowder explosion that shook all of Edinburgh. King Henry survived the explosion only to be suffocated later that same night. The murderers were never discovered. Mary was eventually beheaded at the order of her cousin, Elizabeth I of England.

To such individuals as James and his mother, Mary, the "divine right of kings" meant that since a king's power came from God, the king then had to answer to no one but God. This lack of responsibility extended to evil kings. The reasoning was that if a king was evil, that was a punishment sent from God. The citizens should then suffer in silence. If a king was good, that was a blessing sent from God.

This is why the Geneva Bible annoyed King James I. The Geneva Bible had marginal notes that simply didn't conform to that point of view. Those marginal notes had been, to a great extent, placed in the Geneva Bible by the leaders of the Reformation, including John Knox and John Calvin. Knox and Calvin could not and cannot be dismissed lightly or their opinions passed off to the public as the mere ditherings of dissidents.

First, notes such as, "When tyrants cannot prevail by craft they burst forth into open rage" (Note i, Exodus 1:22) really bothered King James. Second, religion in James' time was not what it is today. In that era religion was controlled by the government. If someone lived in Spain at the time, he had three religious "choices:"

1. Roman Catholicism
2. Silence
3. The Inquisition

The third "option" was reserved for "heretics," or people who didn't think the way the government wanted them to. To governments of that era heresy and treason were synonymous. England wasn't much different. From the time of Henry VIII on, an Englishman had three choices:

1. The Anglican Church
2. Silence
3. The rack, burning at the stake, being drawn and quartered, or some other form of persuasion.

The hapless individuals who fell into the hands of the government for holding religious opinions of their own were simply punished according to the royal whim.

Henry VIII, once he had appointed himself head of all the English churches, kept the Roman Catholic system of bishops, deacons and the like for a very good reason. That system allowed him a "chain of command" necessary for any bureaucracy to function. This system passed intact to his heirs.

This system became a little confusing for English citizens when Bloody Mary ascended to the throne. Mary wanted everyone to switch back to Roman Catholicism. Those who proved intransigent and wanted to remain Protestant she burned at the stake - about 300 people in all. She intended to burn a lot more, but the rest of her intended victims escaped by leaving the country. A tremendous number of those intended victims settled in Geneva. Religious refugees from other countries in Western Europe, including the French theologian Jean Chauvin, better known as John Calvin, also settled there.

Mary died and was succeeded in the throne by her Protestant cousin, Elizabeth. The Anglican bureaucracy returned, less a few notables such as Archbishop Cranmer and Hugh Latimer (both having been burned at the stake by Bloody Mary). In Scotland, John Knox led the Reformation. The Reformation prospered in Geneva. Many of those who had fled Bloody Mary started a congregation there. Their greatest effort and contribution to the Reformation was the first Geneva Bible.

More marginal notes were added to later editions. By the end of the 16th century, the Geneva Bible had about all the marginal notes there was space available to put them in.

Geneva was an anomaly in 16th century Europe. In the days of absolute despotism and constant warfare, Geneva achieved her independence primarily by constant negotiation, playing off one stronger power against another. While other governments allowed lawyers to drag out cases and took months and years to get rid of corrupt officials, the City of Geneva dispatched most civil and criminal cases within a month and threw corrupt officials into jail the day after they were found out. The academy that John Calvin founded there in 1559 later became the University of Geneva. Religious wars wracked Europe. The Spanish fought to restore Roman Catholicism to Western Europe. The Dutch fought for the Reformation and religious freedom. England, a small country with only 4-1/2 million people, managed to stay aloof because of the natural advantage of the English Channel.

The Dutch declared religious freedom for everybody. Amsterdam became an open city. English Puritans arrived by the boatload. The 1599 Edition of the Geneva Bible was printed in Amsterdam and London in large quantities until well into the 17th century.

King James, before he became James I of England, made it plain that he had no use for the "Dutch rebels" who had rebelled against their Spanish King. Another irony left to us from the 16th century is that the freedom of religion and freedom of the press did not originate in England, as many people commonly assume today. Those freedoms were first given to Protestants by the Dutch, as the records of that era plainly show. England today does not have freedom of the press the way we understand it. (There are things in England such as the Official Secrets Act that often land journalists in jail.)

England was relatively peaceful in the time of Elizabeth I. There was the problem of the Spanish Armada, but that was brief. Elizabeth later became known as "Good Queen Bess," not because she was so good, but because her successor was so bad. Elizabeth died in 1603 and her cousin, James Stuart, son of Mary Stuart, who up until that time had been King James VI of Scotland ascended the throne and became known as King James I of England. James ascended the throne of England with the "divine right of kings" firmly embedded in his mind. Unfortunately, that wasn't his only mental problem.

King James I, among his many other faults, preferred young boys to adult women. He was a flaming homosexual. His activities in that regard have been recorded in numerous books and public records; so much so, that there is no room for debate on the subject. The King was queer.

The very people who use the King James Bible today would be the first ones to throw such a deviant out of the congregations.

The depravity of King James I didn't end with sodomy. James enjoyed killing animals. He called it "hunting." Once he killed an animal, he would literally roll about in its blood. Some believe that he practiced bestiality while the animal lay dying.

James was a sadist as well as a sodomite: he enjoyed torturing people. While King of Scotland in 1591, he personally supervised the torture of poor wretches caught up in the witchcraft trials of Scotland. James would even suggest new tortures to the examiners. One "witch," Barbara Napier, was acquitted. That event so angered James that he wrote personally to the court on May 10, 1551, ordering a sentence of death, and had the jury called into custody. To make sure they understood their particular offense, the King himself presided at a new hearing - and was gracious enough to release them without punishment when they reversed their verdict.

History has it that James was also a great coward. On January 7, 1591, the king was in Edinburgh and emerged from the toll booth. A retinue followed that included the Duke of Lennox and Lord Hume. They fell into an argument with the laird of Logie and pulled their swords. James looked behind, saw the steel flashing, and fled into the nearest refuge which turned out to be a skinner's booth. There to his shame, he "fouled his breeches in fear."

In short, King James I was the kind of despicable creature honorable men loathed, Christians would not associate with, and the Bible itself orders to be put to death (Leviticus 20:13). Knowing what King James was we can easily discern his motives.

James ascended the English throne in 1603. He wasted no time in ordering a new edition of the Bible in order to deny the common people the marginal notes they so valued in the Geneva Bible. That James I wasn't going to have any marginal notes to annoy him and lead English citizens away from what he wanted them to think is a matter of public record. In an account corrected with his own hand dated February 10, 1604, he ordained:

That a translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek, and this to be set out and printed without any marginal notes, and only to be used in all churches of England in time of divine service. James then set up rules that made it impossible for anyone involved in the project to make an honest translation, some of which follow:

1. The ordinary Bible read in the church, commonly called the Bishop's Bible to be followed and as little altered as the truth of the original will permit.

2. Or, since the common people preferred the Geneva Bible to the existing government publication, let's see if we can slip a superseding government publication onto their bookshelves, altered as little as possible.

3. The old Ecclesiastical words to be kept, viz. the word "church" not to be translated "congregation," etc.

4. That is, if a word should be translated a certain way, let's deliberately mistranslate it to make the people think God still belongs to the Anglican Church - exclusively.

5. No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text.