King James

[Book of Jeremiah]

Yeah...King James wasn't gay....he was bi-sexual.

He was neither. But do keep guessing, Bodecea. I suspect you will eventually hit upon the right answer!

 

[Dajjal]

I do not know about King James sexuality, but I do have a reprint of a book written by him which is entitled:
' Daemonologie' I have not read it yet, it is on my list of reading material.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

"Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" Gal. 4:16

Where Did the King James Bible Come From?
Issue Date: September/October 1993

Adapted from LET'S WEIGH THE EVIDENCE by Barry Burton. Concerned that the whole issue of "Which Bible?" was confusing members of his church, Burton wrote this easy-to-read summary of the research of many gifted men in the field of Bible translation. Here is just a small portion of this very readable book.

There Are Two Kinds of Manuscripts:

Accurate Copies

These manuscripts represent the manuscripts from which the "Textus Receptus" or Received Text was taken.

They are the majority of Greek manuscripts which agree with each other and have been accepted by Bible believing Christians down through the centuries. It is from these manuscripts that the King James Bible was translated in 1611.

Corrupted Copies

These manuscripts represent the corrupted copies of the Bible, also known as the Alexandrian manuscripts. These manuscripts, many times, do not even agree with each other. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts are part of this group. These are the manuscripts on which Westcott and Hort and the modern versions rely so heavily.

There are 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts that contain all or part of the New Testament. These manuscripts agree together 95% of the time. The other 5% account for the differences between the King James and the modern versions.

The modern versions had to use the Textus Receptus, since it contains the majority of the surviving Greek manuscripts. The problem is that, when the Textus Receptus disagreed with the Vaticanus or the Sinaiticus, they preferred these corrupted manuscripts over the Textus Receptus.

That accounts for the 5% corruption in the modern versions. Even these two manuscripts agree with the Textus Receptus much of the time. When they do not agree, it is because Marcion (120-160 AD) or Origin (184-254 AD) or whoever, corrupted them.

Now, the fact has been established that the modern versions are different than the King James Bible (see LET'S WEIGH THE EVIDENCE for numerous, verse by verse examples). But, we still need to answer the question: Why are they different?

There are at least 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts which contain all or part of the New Testament. Plus, there are translations into different languages which date back to within 100 years of the disciples. For example, the Peshitta is a Syrian translation from the 2nd century.

These manuscripts agree with each other about 95% of the time. The problem is, how does one determine what is right in the 5% of the places where the manuscripts do not agree?

Argument One

(Modern versions) "The Bible is just like any other book. It is not liable to Satanic attack. In order to find out what the original copy probably said, you just find the oldest copies available and use them.

"We don't have the exact word of God now anyway, so a few disagreements will not matter."

Argument Two

(King James Bible) "The Bible is not ‘just like any other book.' Satan hates it because it is the Word of God. Satan has been trying to destroy it ever since the Garden of Eden.

"However, God has preserved His Word for us. He preserved the Old Testament through the Levites as priests and He has preserved the New Testament through the body of believers through the witness of the Holy Spirit."

The vast majority of Greek manuscripts agree together. They have been passed down through the centuries by true Bible-believing Christians.

In 1516 Erasmus compiled, edited, and printed the Greek "Textus Receptus" (received text). This is the text that the Protestants of the Reformation knew to be the Word of God (inerrant and infallible). The King James Bible was translated from the "Textus Receptus."

The debate continues:

Argument One

(Modern versions) The oldest surviving manuscripts must be the most reliable. Therefore, when determining what manuscripts to depend on, the Vaticanus (350 AD) and the Sinaiticus (about 350 AD) should be accepted as correct (even if 998 other manuscripts disagree with them).

Argument Two

(King James) The oldest manuscripts (the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) are not reliable at all! But wait, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus disagree with each other over 3,000 times in the gospels alone!

Facts About the Vaticanus

It was written on fine vellum (tanned animal skins) and remains in excellent condition. It was found in the Vatican Library in 1481 AD. In spite of being in excellent condition, it omits:

Genesis 1:1 through Genesis 46:28
Psalms 106-138
Matthew 16:2-3
The Pauline Pastoral Epistles
Hebrews 9:14-13:25
Revelation

These parts were probably left out on purpose.

Besides all that, in the gospels alone it leaves out 237 words, 452 clauses and 748 whole sentences, which hundreds of later copies agree together as having the same words in the same places, the same clauses in the same places and the same sentences in the same places.

The Vaticanus was available to the translators of the King James Bible, but they didn't use it because they knew it is unreliable. The Vaticanus also contains the Apocrypha.

Facts About the Sinaiticus

The Sinaiticus is a manuscript that was found in 1844 in a trash pile in St. Catherine's Monastery near Mt. Sinai, by a man named Mr. Tischendorf. It contains nearly all of the New Testament plus it adds the "Shepherd of Hermes" and the "Epistle of Barnabas" to the New Testament.

The Sinaiticus is extremely unreliable, proven by examining the manuscript itself. John Burgeon spent years examining every available manuscript of the New Testament. He writes about the Sinaiticus:

"On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness.

Letters, words or even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately canceled; while that gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less that 115 times in the New Testament."

That's not all!

On nearly every page of the manuscript there are corrections and revisions, done by 10 different people. Some of these corrections were made about the same time that it was copied, but most of them were made in the 6th or 7th century.

Phillip Mauro was a brilliant lawyer who was admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court in April 1892. He wrote a book called "Which Version" in the early 1900's. He writes concerning the Sinaiticus:

"From these facts, therefore, we deduce: first that the impurity of the Codex Sinaiticus, in every part of it, was fully recognized by those who were best acquainted with it, and that from the very beginning until the time when it was finally cast aside as worthless for any practical purpose."

The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts are the oldest, but they are not the best manuscripts!!!

That's where the modern translators went wrong! They foolishly accepted the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus simply because they were old.

They did not attempt to find out why they were so vastly different from the Greek text that real Christians have known to be the infallible Word of God.

When the modern versions say in the footnotes, "Some of the oldest mss. do not contain vv. 9-20," or "This verse not found in the most ancient authorities," they are taking their information from the corrupt and unreliable Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts!

Don't fall for the "oldest are the best" line! The oldest are not the best! For example, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus both leave out the last 12 verses of Mark, concerning the resurrection of Christ.

But, there is not one other manuscript, either uncial or cursive, that leave out this passage. There are 18 other uncial (capital letter) manuscripts that have the passage in and at least 600 cursives (small letter) manuscripts that all contain these verses.

The evidence is at least 618 to 2 against the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Yet, look in your modern version.

The New American Standard Bible puts all these verses (Mark 16:9-20) in brackets, saying that these verses probably were not in the original writings. The other versions use brackets or footnotes.

That's ridiculous!!! In a court of law, if you had 618 witnesses that saw something happen, and you had two witnesses that said they did not see it happen, would you accept the testimony of the 618 or the testimony of the 2?

You see, it is foolish for any translator to accept a manuscript simply because of age, without checking to find out where it came from and if it was reliable or not.

Why do the modern versions question the virgin birth of Christ, attack the doctrine of the deity of Christ, the infallibility of the Bible, the doctrine of salvation by faith and the Trinity?

(For the surprising answer to this and many other questions, read LET'S WEIGH THE EVIDENCE by Barry Burton.

Space does not permit including here all the vital information found in this book!)



Home Page



Where did the King James Bible come from?

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Hort and Westcott founded Ghost Society in England

"Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" Gal. 4:16

Where Did the King James Bible Come From?
Issue Date: September/October 1993

Adapted from LET'S WEIGH THE EVIDENCE by Barry Burton. Concerned that the whole issue of "Which Bible?" was confusing members of his church, Burton wrote this easy-to-read summary of the research of many gifted men in the field of Bible translation. Here is just a small portion of this very readable book.

There Are Two Kinds of Manuscripts:

Accurate Copies

These manuscripts represent the manuscripts from which the "Textus Receptus" or Received Text was taken.

They are the majority of Greek manuscripts which agree with each other and have been accepted by Bible believing Christians down through the centuries. It is from these manuscripts that the King James Bible was translated in 1611.

Corrupted Copies

These manuscripts represent the corrupted copies of the Bible, also known as the Alexandrian manuscripts. These manuscripts, many times, do not even agree with each other. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts are part of this group. These are the manuscripts on which Westcott and Hort and the modern versions rely so heavily.

There are 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts that contain all or part of the New Testament. These manuscripts agree together 95% of the time. The other 5% account for the differences between the King James and the modern versions.

The modern versions had to use the Textus Receptus, since it contains the majority of the surviving Greek manuscripts. The problem is that, when the Textus Receptus disagreed with the Vaticanus or the Sinaiticus, they preferred these corrupted manuscripts over the Textus Receptus.

That accounts for the 5% corruption in the modern versions. Even these two manuscripts agree with the Textus Receptus much of the time. When they do not agree, it is because Marcion (120-160 AD) or Origin (184-254 AD) or whoever, corrupted them.

Now, the fact has been established that the modern versions are different than the King James Bible (see LET'S WEIGH THE EVIDENCE for numerous, verse by verse examples). But, we still need to answer the question: Why are they different?

There are at least 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts which contain all or part of the New Testament. Plus, there are translations into different languages which date back to within 100 years of the disciples. For example, the Peshitta is a Syrian translation from the 2nd century.

These manuscripts agree with each other about 95% of the time. The problem is, how does one determine what is right in the 5% of the places where the manuscripts do not agree?

Argument One

(Modern versions) "The Bible is just like any other book. It is not liable to Satanic attack. In order to find out what the original copy probably said, you just find the oldest copies available and use them.

"We don't have the exact word of God now anyway, so a few disagreements will not matter."

Argument Two

(King James Bible) "The Bible is not ‘just like any other book.' Satan hates it because it is the Word of God. Satan has been trying to destroy it ever since the Garden of Eden.

"However, God has preserved His Word for us. He preserved the Old Testament through the Levites as priests and He has preserved the New Testament through the body of believers through the witness of the Holy Spirit."

The vast majority of Greek manuscripts agree together. They have been passed down through the centuries by true Bible-believing Christians.

In 1516 Erasmus compiled, edited, and printed the Greek "Textus Receptus" (received text). This is the text that the Protestants of the Reformation knew to be the Word of God (inerrant and infallible). The King James Bible was translated from the "Textus Receptus."

The debate continues:

Argument One

(Modern versions) The oldest surviving manuscripts must be the most reliable. Therefore, when determining what manuscripts to depend on, the Vaticanus (350 AD) and the Sinaiticus (about 350 AD) should be accepted as correct (even if 998 other manuscripts disagree with them).

Argument Two

(King James) The oldest manuscripts (the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) are not reliable at all! But wait, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus disagree with each other over 3,000 times in the gospels alone!

Facts About the Vaticanus

It was written on fine vellum (tanned animal skins) and remains in excellent condition. It was found in the Vatican Library in 1481 AD. In spite of being in excellent condition, it omits:

Genesis 1:1 through Genesis 46:28
Psalms 106-138
Matthew 16:2-3
The Pauline Pastoral Epistles
Hebrews 9:14-13:25
Revelation

These parts were probably left out on purpose.

Besides all that, in the gospels alone it leaves out 237 words, 452 clauses and 748 whole sentences, which hundreds of later copies agree together as having the same words in the same places, the same clauses in the same places and the same sentences in the same places.

The Vaticanus was available to the translators of the King James Bible, but they didn't use it because they knew it is unreliable. The Vaticanus also contains the Apocrypha.

Facts About the Sinaiticus

The Sinaiticus is a manuscript that was found in 1844 in a trash pile in St. Catherine's Monastery near Mt. Sinai, by a man named Mr. Tischendorf. It contains nearly all of the New Testament plus it adds the "Shepherd of Hermes" and the "Epistle of Barnabas" to the New Testament.

The Sinaiticus is extremely unreliable, proven by examining the manuscript itself. John Burgeon spent years examining every available manuscript of the New Testament. He writes about the Sinaiticus:

"On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness.

Letters, words or even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately canceled; while that gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less that 115 times in the New Testament."

That's not all!

On nearly every page of the manuscript there are corrections and revisions, done by 10 different people. Some of these corrections were made about the same time that it was copied, but most of them were made in the 6th or 7th century.

Phillip Mauro was a brilliant lawyer who was admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court in April 1892. He wrote a book called "Which Version" in the early 1900's. He writes concerning the Sinaiticus:

"From these facts, therefore, we deduce: first that the impurity of the Codex Sinaiticus, in every part of it, was fully recognized by those who were best acquainted with it, and that from the very beginning until the time when it was finally cast aside as worthless for any practical purpose."

The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts are the oldest, but they are not the best manuscripts!!!

That's where the modern translators went wrong! They foolishly accepted the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus simply because they were old.

They did not attempt to find out why they were so vastly different from the Greek text that real Christians have known to be the infallible Word of God.

When the modern versions say in the footnotes, "Some of the oldest mss. do not contain vv. 9-20," or "This verse not found in the most ancient authorities," they are taking their information from the corrupt and unreliable Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts!

Don't fall for the "oldest are the best" line! The oldest are not the best! For example, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus both leave out the last 12 verses of Mark, concerning the resurrection of Christ.

But, there is not one other manuscript, either uncial or cursive, that leave out this passage. There are 18 other uncial (capital letter) manuscripts that have the passage in and at least 600 cursives (small letter) manuscripts that all contain these verses.

The evidence is at least 618 to 2 against the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Yet, look in your modern version.

The New American Standard Bible puts all these verses (Mark 16:9-20) in brackets, saying that these verses probably were not in the original writings. The other versions use brackets or footnotes.

That's ridiculous!!! In a court of law, if you had 618 witnesses that saw something happen, and you had two witnesses that said they did not see it happen, would you accept the testimony of the 618 or the testimony of the 2?

You see, it is foolish for any translator to accept a manuscript simply because of age, without checking to find out where it came from and if it was reliable or not.

Why do the modern versions question the virgin birth of Christ, attack the doctrine of the deity of Christ, the infallibility of the Bible, the doctrine of salvation by faith and the Trinity?

(For the surprising answer to this and many other questions, read LET'S WEIGH THE EVIDENCE by Barry Burton.

Space does not permit including here all the vital information found in this book!)



Home Page

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Bible translator's testimony of his grief over having been a part of the translation for NASB. He admits he made a terrible mistake! :

Bible Translator Says, ‘I'm In Trouble With The Lord.'
Issue Date: November/December 1993


Dr. Frank Logsdon, member of the translation committee for the New American Standard Version (NASB), has denounced his work on that Bible and urged all Christians to return to the Authorized Version, commonly known as the King James Bible.

Although the most popular translation at the present time is the New International Version, both of these modern Bibles are based upon the same Catholic text, and Logsdon's concerns apply to both.

Being involved with the project from the very beginning, Logsdon helped publisher F. Dewey Lockman with the feasibility study that led to the translation. He interviewed some of the translators, sat with them, and even wrote the preface. But soon the questions began coming in.

His old friend, Dr. David Otis Fuller, began to put his finger on the many shortcomings of the Catholic text used in all modern Bibles, which include the NASB and today's NIV.

Logsdon finally said, "I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; it's wrong; it's terribly wrong; it's frightfully wrong; and what am I going to do about it?"

Logsdon shocked publisher Dewey Lockman by writing, "I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard."

Logsdon then began to travel extensively, trying to make up for his error by explaining to people the very simple reasons why the Authorized Version is the one Bible which is absolutely 100% correct.

Along with many other scholars, Logsdon had blindly accepted the basic argument used today to support the use of the two Catholic manuscripts, the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus, in all modern Bibles.

The "experts" claim that these are the oldest manuscripts in existence, so they must be the best!

In one of his many public speeches, Logsdon explained, "When there is an omission that might be observed, they put in the margin, ‘Not in the oldest manuscripts.' But they don't tell you what those oldest manuscripts are. What oldest manuscripts?

Or they say, ‘Not in the best manuscripts.' What are the best manuscripts? They don't tell you. You see how subtle that is?

The average man sees a little note in the margin which says ‘not in the better manuscripts' and he takes for granted they are scholars and they must know, and then he goes on. That's how easily one can be deceived."

It was only after Logsdon took the time to really look into this issue that he was horrified to see that he had played right into Satan's hands, and helped to take many verses out of the Scriptures. Logsdon admitted, "The deletions are absolutely frightening."

The huge number of English Bible translations currently available has produced untold millions of dollars in sales, but does anyone believe that they have produced a modern Church which is more knowledgeable about their Bible? No, it has produced the Siamese twins of confusion and falling away from truth.

All modern Bible translators today use, without question, the New Testament text produced by the famous scholars Hort and Westcott.

But in her book, New Age Bible Versions, author Gail Riplinger exposes the background and corrupt theology of these giants.

Many readers are surprised at the beliefs of these men, documented by their own writings. Yet modern scholars accept their work without question, just as many university professors today blindly accept evolutionary teaching, safely going along with the crowd to protect their reputations. If you hold in your hand the Authorized Version, you have God's Truth.

History supports it, the Holy Spirit has confirmed it, God's Church has prospered by it. You will find it is hated by all those who seek to make an elastic Bible that is all things to all people… which then becomes nothing to anyone.

Logsdon's advice? If you hold the Authorized Version, and someone tries to prod you to accept another, "You don't need to defend it; you don't need to apologize for it.

"Just say, ‘Well, did this new version or this translation come down through the Roman Catholic stream? If so, count me out.'"

Bible translator says, 'I'm in trouble with the Lord.'

 

[Snouter]

Jesus Christ, Jesus was a fag "jewish" douchebag liar and Yahweh was a warmonger Baal that never existed. My GOD, how can Middle East faggotry exist in the modern age in the West? Satan? LOL Or is just simply "jews" seeking control of the dummies?

 

[zaangalewa]

... In 1605 a Roman Catholic by the name of Guy Fawkes, under the direction of a Jesuit priest by the name of Henry Garnet, was found in the basement of Parliament with thirty-six barrels of gunpowder which he was to use to blow up King James and the entire Parliament. After killing the king, they planned on imprisoning his children, re-establishing England as a state loyal to the Pope and kill all who resisted. Needless to say, the perfect English Bible would have been one of the plot's victims. Fawkes and Garnet and eight other conspirators were caught and hanged. ...

Henry Garnet had absolutelly nothing to do with it. He was only executed because he broke not the confessional secret. And Guy Fawkes and others made this because of the anticatholic terrorpolitics of the english government. King James was by the way also famous for the burning of witches in Great Britain.

And in general is it a myth that Catholics did not allow anyone to read the bible. The bible is a book. Books were unbelieveable expensive once. Johannes Gutenberg changed this about 1450-1500 by starting the age of mass information with the bible.

 

[Blackrook]

Jeremiah, thanks for sharing your hateful diatribe against the Catholic Church. It's too bad you missed the entire point of Christianity, which is to love one another.

 

[yiostheoy]

Recently I've noticed that there are some people who are confused about the history of King James. These people have picked up on an age old lie which accused King James of being a homosexual. This accusation began to circulate after the death of King James. In order to help resolve the mystery as to how this false accusation began I offer the following evidence and actual history of King James by those who have done extensive research on the subject. I realize that even after being given this evidence, some will not receive the truth because they have their own agenda. But for those who are honestly searching for truth, here it is:

QUESTION: I have been told that King James was a homosexual. Is this true?
ANSWER: No.

EXPLANATION: King James I of England, who authorized the translation of the now famous King James Bible, was considered by many to be one of the greatest, if not the greatest, monarchs that England has ever seen.
Through his wisdom and determination he united the warring tribes of Scotland into a unified nation, and then joined England and Scotland to form the foundation for what is now known as the British Empire.

At a time when only the churches of England possessed the Bible in English, King James' desire was that the common people should have the Bible in their native tongue. Thus, in 1603, King James called 54 of history's most learned men together to accomplish this great task. At a time when the leaders of the world wished to keep their subjects in spiritual ignorance, King James offered his subjects the greatest gift that he could give them. Their own copy of the Word of God in English.

James, who was fluent in Latin, Greek, and French, and schooled in Italian and Spanish even wrote a tract entitled "Counterblast to Tobacco",which was written to help thwart the use of tobacco in England.

Such a man was sure to have enemies. One such man, Anthony Weldon, had to be excluded from the court. Weldon swore vengeance. It was not until 1650, twenty-five years after the death of James that Weldon saw his chance. He wrote a paper calling James a homosexual. Obviously, James, being dead, was in no condition to defend himself.

The report was largely ignored since there were still enough people alive who knew it wasn't true. In fact, it lay dormant for years, until recently when it was picked up by Christians who hoped that vilifying King James, would tarnish the Bible that bears his name so that Christians would turn away from God's book to a more "modern" translation.

_____
As to the agenda - one might have otherwise have concluded that it is the homosexual community (only) that is behind this insidious attempt to discredit King James today but truly it is still being instigated by the Jesuits of the Roman Catholic Institution which sought to destroy the King James Holy Bible by any means necessary - from the very beginning. This thread will include evidence which proves the KJV Holy Bible is the preserved Word of God and that it is the RCC which is behind the push for 'other translations' in order to drive the KJV Holy Bible into extinction. After all, what would Satan desire to steal from the saints of God but the Word of God - which is preserved in the KJV Holy Bible?

Was King James a homosexual?

Actually Henry the 8th and his daughter Elizabeth the 1st were the greatest British monarchs of all history.

I can see you make things up as you go, Jerie.

Note that "authorized" does not come from your statement above.

It comes from "authorized to be read in English churches."

Jeeze bebe you are unschooled.

 

[yiostheoy]

Jeremiah, thanks for sharing your hateful diatribe against the Catholic Church. It's too bad you missed the entire point of Christianity, which is to love one another.

She does that all the time.

In so doing she is actually honoring Catholicism.

We do not want her.

 

[yiostheoy]

Jesuit Extreme Oath of Induction

The Extreme Oath of the Jesuits:

"1, _ now, in the presence of Almighty God, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the blessed Michael the Archangel, the blessed St. John the Baptist, the holy Apostles St. Peter and St. Paul and all the saints and sacred hosts of heaven, and to you, my ghostly father, the Superior General of the Society of Jesus, founded by St. Ignatius Loyola in the Pontificate of Paul the Third, and continued to the present, do by the womb of the virgin, the matrix of God, and the rod of Jesus Christ, declare and swear, that his holiness the Pope is Christ's Vice-regent and is the true and only head of the Catholic or Universal Church throughout the earth; and that by virtue of the keys of binding and loosing, given to his Holiness by my Savior, Jesus Christ, he hath power to depose heretical kings, princes, states, commonwealths and governments, all being illegal without his sacred confirmation and that they may safely be destroyed.

Therefore, to the utmost of my power I shall and will defend this doctrine of his Holiness' right and custom against all usurpers of the heretical or Protestant authority whatever, especially the Lutheran of Germany, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and the now pretended authority and churches of England and Scotland, and branches of the same now established in Ireland and on the Continent of America and elsewhere; and all adherents in regard that they be usurped and heretical, opposing the sacred Mother Church of Rome.

I do now renounce and disown any allegiance as due to any heretical king, prince or state named Protestants or Liberals, or obedience to any of the laws, magistrates or officers.

I do further declare that the doctrine of the churches of England and Scotland, of the Calvinists, Huguenots and others of the name Protestants or Liberals to be damnable and they themselves damned who will not forsake the same.

I do further declare, that I will help, assist, and advise all or any of his Holiness' agents in any place wherever I shall be, in Switzerland, Germany, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, England, Ireland or America, or in any other Kingdom or territory I shall come to, and do my uttermost to extirpate the heretical Protestants or Liberals' doctrines and to destroy all their pretended powers, regal or otherwise.

I do further promise and declare, that notwithstanding I am dispensed with, to assume my religion heretical, for the propaganda of the Mother Church's interest, to keep secret and private all her agents' counsels from time to time, as they may entrust me and not to divulge, directly or indirectly, by word, writing or circumstance whatever; but to execute all that shall be proposed, given in charge or discovered unto me, by you, my ghostly father, or any of this sacred covenant.

I do further promise and declare, that I will have no opinion or will of my own, or any mental reservation whatever, even as a corpse or cadaver (perinde ac cadaver), but will unhesitatingly obey each and every command that I may receive from my superiors in the Militia of the Pope and of Jesus Christ.

That I may go to any part of the world withersoever I may be sent, to the frozen regions of the North, the burning sands of the desert of Africa, or the jungles of India, to the centers of civilization of Europe, or to the wild haunts of the barbarous savages of America, without murmuring or repining, and will be submissive in all things whatsoever communicated to me.

I furthermore promise and declare that I will, when opportunity present, make and wage relentless war, secretly or openly, against all heretics, Protestants and Liberals, as I am directed to do, to extirpate and exterminate them from the face of the whole earth; and that I will spare neither age, sex or condition; and that I will hang, waste, boil, flay, strangle and bury alive these infamous heretics, rip up the stomachs and wombs of their women and crush their infants' heads against the walls, in order to annihilate forever their execrable race.

That when the same cannot be done openly, I will secretly use the poisoned cup, the strangulating cord, the steel of the poniard or the leaden bullet, regardless of the honor, rank, dignity, or authority of the person or persons, whatever may be their condition in life, either public or private, as I at any time may be directed so to do by any agent of the Pope or Superior of the Brotherhood of the Holy Faith, of the Society of Jesus.

In confirmation of which, I hereby dedicate my life, my soul and all my corporal powers, and with this dagger which I now receive, I will subscribe my name written in my own blood, in testimony thereof; and should I prove false or weaken in my determination, may my brethren and fellow soldiers of the Militia of the Pope cut off my hands and my feet, and my throat from ear to ear, my belly opened and sulphur burned therein, with all the punishment that can be inflicted upon me on earth and my soul be tortured by demons in an eternal hell forever!

All of which, I, _, do swear by the Blessed Trinity and blessed Sacraments, which I am now to receive, to perform and on my part to keep inviolable; and do call all the heavenly and glorious host of heaven to witness the blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist, and witness the same further with my name written and with the point of this dagger dipped in my own blood and sealed in the face of this holy covenant."

(He receives the wafer from the Superior and writes his name with the point of his dagger dipped in his own blood taken from over his heart.)

Superior:

"You will now rise to your feet and I will instruct you in the Catechism necessary to make yourself known to any member of the Society of Jesus belonging to this rank.

In the first place, you, as a Brother Jesuit, will with another mutually make the ordinary sign of the cross as any ordinary Roman Catholic would; then one cross his wrists, the palms of his hands open, and the other in answer crosses his feet, one above the other; the first points with forefinger of the right hand to the center of the palm of the left, the other with the forefinger of the left hand points to the center of the palm of the right; the first then with his right hand makes a circle around his head, touching it; the other then with the forefinger of his left hand touches the left side of his body just below his heart; the first then with his right hand draws it across the throat of the other, and the latter then with a dagger down the stomach and abdomen of the first.

The first then says Iustum; and the other answers Necar; the first Reges. The other answers Impious." (The meaning of which has already been explained.) "The first will then present a small piece of paper folded in a peculiar manner, four times, which the other will cut longitudinally and on opening the name Jesu will be found written upon the head and arms of a cross three times. You will then give and receive with him the following questions and answers:

Question —From whither do you come? Answer — The Holy faith.

Q. —Whom do you serve?

A. —The Holy Father at Rome, the Pope, and the Roman Catholic Church Universal throughout the world.

Q. —Who commands you?

A. —The Successor of St. Ignatius Loyola, the founder of the Society of Jesus or the Soldiers of Jesus Christ.

Q. —Who received you? A. —A venerable man in white hair.

Q. —How?

A. —With a naked dagger, I kneeling upon the cross beneath the banners of the Pope and of our sacred order.

Q. —Did you take an oath?

A. —I did, to destroy heretics and their governments and rulers, and to spare neither age, sex nor condition. To be as a corpse without any opinion or will of my own, but to implicitly obey my Superiors in all things without hesitation of murmuring.

Q. —Will you do that? A. —I will.

Q. —How do you travel? A. —In the bark of Peter the fisherman.

Q. —Whither do you travel? A. —To the four quarters of the globe.

Q. —For what purpose?

A. —To obey the orders of my general and Superiors and execute the will of the Pope and faithfully fulfill the conditions of my oaths.

Q. —Go ye, then, into all the world and take possession of all lands in the name of the Pope. He who will not accept him as the Vicar of Jesus and his Vice-regent on earth, let him be accursed and exterminated."

Very inspiring.

What part did you NOT like ??

 

[yiostheoy]

The original King James had the same books of the RC Bible, are you reading the original 1611 edition.

Didn't the Roman Catholic Church give us the Bible?

© 2001 by David W. Daniels

Question: Wasn’t it the Catholic Church that was responsible for the Bible being written?

Answer: No. The Catholic Church tried to take credit for what the Lord did without their help.

Here is a short history of the Bible.

1. Old Testament

The Old Testament was written by Moses, David and Solomon, prophets, seers and kings. There was no "church" of any kind to claim responsibility for it. God inspired individuals to bring God's word to the people. The Old Testament is the recorded revelation of God up until about 400 BC.

2. The Inter-Testamental Period

The time between about 400 BC and about 5 BC is usually called the Years of Prophetic Silence. This is because God created a process that lasted 400 years to create a world climate ready for the coming of the promised Messiah. There was no "church" at this time, either. But there was the new creation of the "synagogue," since the Jewish people needed to worship God and did not have the Temple when they were in exile. When many came back 400-500 BC, they already had functional synagogues; and even though the Temple was being rebuilt by those returning from exile, the synagogue idea remained and more were built. This was the beginning of the "congregation" or "church" as we have it today.

But there was no Scripture being written during this period. That was yet to come after one came "in the spirit and power of Elias" (Luke 1:17).

3. The Time of Christ

It is likely that Matthew (Levi) the tax collector and later disciple of Jesus took notes of what happened during Jesus' ministry. However, it is also true that were God in the flesh living among you, His words would burn into your soul. I am sure, as the apostles clearly recollected as they wrote the New Testament (2 Peter 1:16-21; 1 John 1:1-3; 4:14), they could not escape the image and words of Jesus Christ, God the Son and Son of God, when He spoke into their hearts (Luke 9:44; 24:32).

But it wasn't a "church" that made them write.

2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.



And

2 Peter 1:19-21
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.



God the Holy Spirit inspired them, perfectly and accurately, to write the words of God for the church. The church did not "inspire" anything.

4. The Church Age

When the apostles wrote their letters, the congregations received them. They read them. They spread them. They copied them for other brethren in Christ Jesus. And they recognized their authority in the Christian's life. So the Scriptures were produced by men of God, not by "the church." But they were produced FOR the church.

The last book of the Bible was Revelation, written about 96 AD, just before the apostle John died around 100 AD. After the apostles died, the churches continued to collect the letters they did not have, to read them and understand the authority under God by which they wrote.

But no one else shared that place. There is an "epistle of Barnabas" (which bears no proof it was written by Barnabas), which many think was penned in the first century. But the difference between its message of salvation and of the apostolic writings is too easy to see. If you believe the Scriptures, you cannot believe the so-called "epistle of Barnabas."

There are the writings of Polycarp, disciple of John (when John was very aged). There are writings of Clement and others. But those are all writings of Christians. Just Christians. Some were even martyrs, but their writings depended on the Scriptures--they were not Scripture themselves. Anyone who would base their faith on them would have a horrid foundation, just as if there were "Lutherans" today, learning of God's word only what they find in Martin Luther's writings. Interesting writing, at times "inspirational" writing, fine. Inspired? Not a chance.

The Roman Catholic church has had only one aim from its earliest, pagan and political origins: To destroy the true Christians, and to destroy their Bible. That is why they substituted the corrupt Alexandrian perversions of scripture, instead of using the preserved, prophetic and apostolic Words of God as found in Antioch of Syria, where "the disciples were first called Christians" (Acts 11:26). That is why they also added the Alexandrian writings we now call "Apocrypha" to their perverted bibles. That is why they used their Jesuits to infiltrate the Protestant Seminaries, Colleges and Bible Schools. Their Jesuits became the "teachers" and planted seeds of doubt in the Christians' minds. These doubt-ridden Christians then taught at other colleges and schools. All the while they planted that same seed of doubt of God's word in their students.

The stage was set: Once people no longer believed in God's Preserved Words, which we find perfectly presented in the King James Bible, they were ripe for destruction. Now, 120 years after the switch from God's Word to devil's lies (the King James abandoned for the Alexandrian texts), while pretending to "improve" our copies of God's words, they really set up the abandonment of God's words. Now almost every Bible in the English-speaking world (and most other languages) is just another re-translation of the Alexandrian polluted stream.

Another way to view it is that the Scriptures as we find them preserved in the King James is like God's fountain ...

Jeremiah 2:13
13 For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.


And that's the point: The bible spewed out by the Catholic church, which now almost all Protestants and other Christians use, ... simply doesn't hold water.
Here is a Q & A that may be of interest to you, Penelope:

© 2001 by David W. Daniels

Question: Wasn’t it the Catholic Church that was responsible for the Bible being written?

Answer: No. The Catholic Church tried to take credit for what the Lord did without their help.

Here is a short history of the Bible.

1. Old Testament

The Old Testament was written by Moses, David and Solomon, prophets, seers and kings. There was no "church" of any kind to claim responsibility for it. God inspired individuals to bring God's word to the people. The Old Testament is the recorded revelation of God up until about 400 BC.

2. The Inter-Testamental Period

The time between about 400 BC and about 5 BC is usually called the Years of Prophetic Silence. This is because God created a process that lasted 400 years to create a world climate ready for the coming of the promised Messiah. There was no "church" at this time, either. But there was the new creation of the "synagogue," since the Jewish people needed to worship God and did not have the Temple when they were in exile. When many came back 400-500 BC, they already had functional synagogues; and even though the Temple was being rebuilt by those returning from exile, the synagogue idea remained and more were built. This was the beginning of the "congregation" or "church" as we have it today.

But there was no Scripture being written during this period. That was yet to come after one came "in the spirit and power of Elias" (Luke 1:17).

3. The Time of Christ

It is likely that Matthew (Levi) the tax collector and later disciple of Jesus took notes of what happened during Jesus' ministry. However, it is also true that were God in the flesh living among you, His words would burn into your soul. I am sure, as the apostles clearly recollected as they wrote the New Testament (2 Peter 1:16-21; 1 John 1:1-3; 4:14), they could not escape the image and words of Jesus Christ, God the Son and Son of God, when He spoke into their hearts (Luke 9:44; 24:32).

But it wasn't a "church" that made them write.

2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.



And

2 Peter 1:19-21
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.



God the Holy Spirit inspired them, perfectly and accurately, to write the words of God for the church. The church did not "inspire" anything.

4. The Church Age

When the apostles wrote their letters, the congregations received them. They read them. They spread them. They copied them for other brethren in Christ Jesus. And they recognized their authority in the Christian's life. So the Scriptures were produced by men of God, not by "the church." But they were produced FOR the church.

The last book of the Bible was Revelation, written about 96 AD, just before the apostle John died around 100 AD. After the apostles died, the churches continued to collect the letters they did not have, to read them and understand the authority under God by which they wrote.

But no one else shared that place. There is an "epistle of Barnabas" (which bears no proof it was written by Barnabas), which many think was penned in the first century. But the difference between its message of salvation and of the apostolic writings is too easy to see. If you believe the Scriptures, you cannot believe the so-called "epistle of Barnabas."

There are the writings of Polycarp, disciple of John (when John was very aged). There are writings of Clement and others. But those are all writings of Christians. Just Christians. Some were even martyrs, but their writings depended on the Scriptures--they were not Scripture themselves. Anyone who would base their faith on them would have a horrid foundation, just as if there were "Lutherans" today, learning of God's word only what they find in Martin Luther's writings. Interesting writing, at times "inspirational" writing, fine. Inspired? Not a chance.

The Roman Catholic church has had only one aim from its earliest, pagan and political origins: To destroy the true Christians, and to destroy their Bible. That is why they substituted the corrupt Alexandrian perversions of scripture, instead of using the preserved, prophetic and apostolic Words of God as found in Antioch of Syria, where "the disciples were first called Christians" (Acts 11:26). That is why they also added the Alexandrian writings we now call "Apocrypha" to their perverted bibles. That is why they used their Jesuits to infiltrate the Protestant Seminaries, Colleges and Bible Schools. Their Jesuits became the "teachers" and planted seeds of doubt in the Christians' minds. These doubt-ridden Christians then taught at other colleges and schools. All the while they planted that same seed of doubt of God's word in their students.

The stage was set: Once people no longer believed in God's Preserved Words, which we find perfectly presented in the King James Bible, they were ripe for destruction. Now, 120 years after the switch from God's Word to devil's lies (the King James abandoned for the Alexandrian texts), while pretending to "improve" our copies of God's words, they really set up the abandonment of God's words. Now almost every Bible in the English-speaking world (and most other languages) is just another re-translation of the Alexandrian polluted stream.

Another way to view it is that the Scriptures as we find them preserved in the King James is like God's fountain ...

Jeremiah 2:13
13 For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.


And that's the point: The bible spewed out by the Catholic church, which now almost all Protestants and other Christians use, ... simply doesn't hold water.

You have an echo.

You repeated yourself.

 

[yiostheoy]

Poor Agnes Sampson.

Agnes Sampson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[yiostheoy]

"Many of James' biographers concluded that Esme Stewart, Robert Carr, and George Villiers were his lovers."

Personal relationships of James VI and I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

James VI and I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Blackrook]

Jeremiah, let me get this straight. If I can convince you that King James was gay, does that mean you will NOT believe in his translation of the Bible?

 

[Penelope]

Jeremiah, let me get this straight. If I can convince you that King James was gay, does that mean you will NOT believe in his translation of the Bible?

I wonder that as well.

 

[bodecea]

Jeri,
How come you won't answer the question I put to you in your last thread? What is the correct translation of the bible for people who do not speak English?

The answer to your question, Bodecea, was posted on thread #4. See this brief video which addresses your question concerning people who do not speak English. I will re-post the video for you.

Here it is:

Thread #4? That doesn't even make sense....and I am wise enough to not click on any of your videos.......so you have no answer. Surprise surprise.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Jeri,
How come you won't answer the question I put to you in your last thread? What is the correct translation of the bible for people who do not speak English?

The answer to your question, Bodecea, was posted on thread #4. See this brief video which addresses your question concerning people who do not speak English. I will re-post the video for you.


Here it is:

Thread #4? That doesn't even make sense....and I am wise enough to not click on any of your videos.......so you have no answer. Surprise surprise.

Sure I do. The only words that were changed were the names. John was changed to Juan and so on......other than that? No changes. The documentation is all there in the video you refuse to watch.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

For those who watch videos this is excellent.

 

[Agit8r]

Who cares if he was gay or not?