[ Up ] [ Bible exposed ] [ The Jesus myth ] [ Piso ] [ Rationality ] [ Sovereignty ] [ 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.
http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/index.html [closed down]
This website documents 192 biblical discrepancies.
Bible Exposed: Parts 1, 2 & 3
i.e., not 100% inspired.
Bible not inspired but still has some historical significance
Were The Israelites?
by Brian Desborough
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
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
Violence, Hate, and Immorality
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
The real reason
for the war between the Romans and the Jews
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
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
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.
Items in History Related to the "Synthesis Of Christianity"
CHECKLIST OF WHAT WE HAVE FOUND TO BE THE CASE
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 means by which to preserve and continue the practice of slavery and
disseminate rhetorical ideologies to the masses that would make them more
easy to control and manipulate. And,
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
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.
needed to make their own military stronger, loyal, and braver, as well as
filled with HATE for the enemy; "the Jews."
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,
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,
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.
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,
making Christians appear to be 'martyrs', and
effectively hiding the fact that they (the Romans) actually 'created' the
These are the
persons who wrote the works that we depend upon to tell us what happened. Yet,
we have discovered that they,
were NOT who they led us to believe they were, and
they deliberately mislead us and lied to us in order to hide the truth.
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
(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
(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
(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!
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 firstname.lastname@example.org
For archived issues of Global News Net, Archives
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.
Who Really Was King James
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
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
1. The Anglican Church
3. The rack, burning at the stake, being drawn and quartered, or some other form
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
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
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.