shewhomustbeobeyed wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2023 5:53 pm
Please let me know what you think. No hurry.
The Great Ecclesiastical Conspiracy - By George Davis and Michael Clark, read by Doug Perry [1.51.11]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yci9dA7qhT0&pp=2AEAkAIB
* ~
Lots of good points and some fine analyses in the first chapter, an overview and summary of the history of the reformation, and of the political and theological plays and players surrounding the greatest national project, I would say, in a millennia or two: the translation of the never titled version of the Bible, initially referred to as the Authorised Version 1611, and now usually called the King James Version.
The tone changes thereafter and becomes strangely hostile making the most of emotive power to inflate the importance of what are very often marginal cases based largely on conjecture hearsay and surmising.
The most substantive point about the word choices seems to be that of using the word church rather than the word congregation. While I agree that there may well be an institutional self interest contributing to this choice I don’t think that the writers manage to demonstrate that it is nearly as important as they suggest.
The A.V. 1611 took into account all the previous translations, particularly the Geneva, and the Bishop’s bible, and although there would unavoidably be bad actors associated with such an important project, I think the A.V. 1611 is still to this day one of the best translations overall, and is undoubtedly the one that scares the beast most.
All these column inches devoted to ekeing out a case against James while the actual rival to the KJV translation, the one who considers himself literally to be God, sits peacefully and comfortably, in spite of all the Pilgrim Father’s Geneva bibles, in Rome on the Potomac.
As for the idea that the KJV translation was calculated expressly for the purpose of bolstering ecclesiastical and royal power and authority, this is patently absurd as is well attested by the subsequent history of the church/congregation of the CofE; not exactly a bastion of patriarchal authority and societal domination.
This is turning out to be a bit of a curate’s egg, the apparent exercise of scholarly thoroughness is let down more and more by inflation of marginal points into angry diatribes with a caustic and accusatory tone that does not befit a scholarly work. There does seem to be a lot of hearsay and rumour here, and very little well attested history; ‘There can be little doubt’, ‘Most likely’, ‘It is not clear, but’, ‘Apparently’, ‘I am convinced’, ‘We believe’, ‘There is little doubt’…
I really do think that the association of the character of King James is often overemphasised in the discussions about the A.V. and I have yet to see anything beyond conjecture about exactly what his influence may have been.
The anecdote about a Mr Melville manhandling the King and denouncing him (whilst maintaining support for him publicly) sounds unlikely to me, but if it is true then it surely demonstrates a lack of power on the part of James.
As I understand it his most likely motive for sponsoring the work was to to placate a powerful protestant populace and to assuage fears that he himself was a pawn of the pope, hence the set up of a large number of teams with a broad and open oversight process extending all the way to local parishes. Not to say that the process was beyond all corruption, but I think it was pretty successful by any reasonable metric.
Overall I think this is the centre of my inability to endorse the case being made here; the undermining of scripture is obviously central to satan’s plan and the A.V.1611 is centre target so I get nervous and suspicious when it becomes almost the sole focus of attack.
It may be harsh criticism (especially given all the increase in knowledge and learning so many of us have gone through since this book was published in 2002) and I don’t want to overlook or dismiss the good analysis presented in this book, but I would also mention that the case could be considered somewhat marginal and incomplete without reference to the other reformation/A.V. shortcomings such as the use of the words ‘Lord’, ‘God’, and ‘Jesus’ instead of the names found in the scriptures, and of course, the abandoning of Yah’s sabbath,
Most of all I find it difficult to understand why these apparently knowledgeable writers would overlook that arguably the A.V. 1611 has done more than anything else to oppose the genuinely most illegitimate authority in the world, ecclesiastical or otherwise: the Papacy.
To some extent, I think the wonder is that the anti-christians who took part in the corruption of the Word throughout all history have achieved so little, but still much of what the beast system has achieved in apostatising the church is unaddressed here, and what is detailed runs some risk of being more useful to the enemies of Yah than to His saints.
Comparing the Geneva to the A.V. is very easy to do these days, and if the Geneva was even just as good as the A.V. then many more people would read it, but they don’t because it isn’t. There is very little difference overall, but I think that what there is favours the KJV translation. I suspect that these guys don’t read the Geneva bible at home either, but if they do then maybe that would explain their resentment of readers of the KJV.
Read for yourself: Judges 1 Geneva Bible
https://biblehub.com/geneva/judges/1.htm
it’s not evil, and not entirely unreadable, but the KJV is better.
Is there somewhere a more egalitarian church built on the Geneva bible? or any other translation?, as far as I am aware the city of Geneva is ground zero for the NWO beast and home to the pope’s bodyguard: the Swiss guard. For what it’s worth, I have never heard of any congregation anywhere that holds the Geneva bible as it’s primary text.
What the Geneva does have is the margin notes which as far as I can tell are only really important to help with understanding who the beast is, something that A.V.1611 readers can and do learn in many other ways. The other doctrinal stance mentioned: anti Calvinism is something I would have strong reservations about anyway, so I’m going to dismiss the idea that the superiority of the Geneva bible is the motive here.
To say that we should be using word for word translations is another nonsense, such translations are freely available yet not widely read because they don’t avoid any of the problems of word choices but merely avoid having to make sense.
The translation choices highlighted by Messrs Davis and Clark mainly centre around the furthering of the authoritarian interests of the institutions of power, with what seems to me to be entirely legitimate and accurate analysis, and yet the criticisms of a number of cases, even collectively still do not seem to me to merit the kind of vitriol being spat here. I don’t know if it is the intention of the writers, but I do fear that their case may lean toward the ‘anti-authoritarian’ thinking favoured by the modern authorities.
Trying to make a feminist case against the KJV (and not simultaneously all scripture) is just descending to the absurd.
The complaint that people should only worship in households (thereby presumably limiting the size of the congregations of all but the very rich) and that the apostles never preached in churches is probably because the church was young and small and so when they preached to larger audiences it would be in other types of temples or auditoria such as synagogues.
This is now a wandering bemoaning of believers falling short of the mark in general, but blaming it on supposed translational issues within the KJV; that people are not following the commandments is not merely the outcome of poor translations since all these failings were apparent in the history of those using the original untranslated texts.
This is just getting silly; suggesting that the KJV’s use of the word ‘ruler’ is somehow to blame for dictatorships.
The Church is a mere institution - mmm rather than a so called “apostolic succession”?
The desire for a ‘more loving’ hierarchy is universal across all religions not just among KJV protestants
Are they actually using the institution of pope as proof that the KJV has bolstered hierarchical power!
and it’s to blame for the churches being too impressive! and now it is to be blamed for the actions of the sanhedrin?! These guys are desperate to denigrate this book.
To use different translated words in different contexts is a common part of the process of all translation not just that of KJV protestants.
They don’t seem to find a good resolution to what constitutes legitimate Biblical authority, but instead focus solely on the illegitimate claims and actions of the bad actors among those surrounding the translators, thus further undermining the authority of the Bible. ?
The case against Priestly and Kingly authority is not at all scriptural in my estimation:
23 Whatsoever is commanded by the God of heaven, let it be diligently done for the house of the God of heaven: for why should there be wrath against the realm of the king and his sons? 24 Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them. 25 And thou, Ezra, after the wisdom of thy God, that is in thine hand, set magistrates and judges, which may judge all the people that are beyond the river, all such as know the laws of thy God; and teach ye them that know them not. 26 And whosoever will not do the law of thy God, and the law of the king, let judgment be executed speedily upon him, whether it be unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment. 27 Blessed be the LORD God of our fathers, which hath put such a thing as this in the king's heart, to beautify the house of the LORD which is in Jerusalem: 28 And hath extended mercy unto me before the king, and his counsellors, and before all the king's mighty princes. And I was strengthened as the hand of the LORD my God was upon me, and I gathered together out of Israel chief men to go up with me. Ezra 7:25
There is no shortage of writings about the Kingly authority of David:
One that comes to mind is David in his Kingly authority pronouncing judgement on the Amalekite who obeyed the wounded King Saul’s request for him to put him out of his misery:
14 And David said unto him, How wast thou not afraid to stretch forth thine hand to destroy the LORD'S anointed? 15 And David called one of the young men, and said, Go near, and fall upon him. And he smote him that he died. 16 And David said unto him, Thy blood be upon thy head; for thy mouth hath testified against thee, saying, I have slain the LORD'S anointed.
2 SAMUEL CHAPTER 1 KJV
Aur as the Genyva woode haue it:
14 And Dauid said vnto him, How wast thou not afrayd, to put forth thine hand to destroy the Anoynted of the Lord? 15 Then Dauid called one of his yong men, and said, Goe neere, and fall vpon him; hee smote him that he dyed. 16 Then said Dauid vnto him, Thy blood be vpon thine owne head: for thine owne mouth hath testified against thee, saying, I haue slaine the Lords Anoynted.
2 Samuel 1 Geneva Bible
Also:
Then David put garrisons in Syria of Damascus: and the Syrians became servants to David, and brought gifts. And the LORD preserved David whithersoever he went. 2 Samuel 8:6
The scriptures call people gods, not just the KJV translators:
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. Psalms 82
5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 1 Corinthians 8
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? John 10
Kings (and Judges) are indeed referred to as elohiym (gods - loser case g), and Kingly authority is of course based on Yah’s concession to the request of the people of Israel, though we now have, as the writers correctly state, a King of Kings above all.
EXODUS 21:6 KJV "Then his master shall bring him unto the judges [hā·’ĕ·lō·hîm, הָ֣אֱלֹהִ֔ים]; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door..."
Strong's Hebrew: 430. אֱלֹהִים (elohim) -- God, god
[rulers, judges, either as divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power: האלהים Exodus 21:6 (Onk ᵑ6, but τὸ κριτήριον τοῦ Θεοῦ ᵐ5) Exodus 22:7; Exodus 22:8; אלהים Exodus 22:8; Exodus 22:27 (ᵑ7 Ra AE Ew RVm; but gods, ᵐ5 Josephus Philo AV; God, Di RV; all Covt. code of E) compare 1 Samuel 2:25 see Dr.; Judges 5:8 (Ew, but gods ᵐ5; God ᵑ6 BarHebr.; יהוה ᵑ9 Be) Psalm 82:1; Psalm 82:6 (De Ew Pe; but angels Bl Hup) Psalm 138:1 (ᵑ6 ᵑ7 Rab Ki De; but angels ᵐ5 Calv; God, Ew; gods, Hup Pe Che).]
The premise of the authority of the prophets and of the priest is a fundamental underpinning of all scripture, so although they had sinful mortal natures and regularly fell short of the servant shepherd principle, they were explicitly set over the people and were judged mercifully and patiently by the Almighty (as with all His people) whilst he continued to uphold their positions of authority.
The ‘greatly beloved’ prophet Daniel served in the court of the Babylonian, and Medo-Persian Kings insofar as he was able to without disobeying Yah.
I believe it is this understanding of status which Paul, and Yahusha himself allude to:
17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you. Hebrews 13 KJV
(This is an instruction and warning to rulers more than to the ruled)
17 And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him. Mark 12 KJV
We should trust to the judgement and power of Yahuah Tseva’oth and to His son to whom he has given all power and authority.
There is also the obvious status of the Apostles in the early church who whilst being humble servants were clearly leading from the front and exercising individual and collective authority, in a healthy patriarchy, fully empowering and enabling the women, who like the men were committed to faithful humble and obedient service according to the Word of Yahuah.
And obviously the writers would concede the Kingly authority of Yahusha. He is not coming to rubber stamp all applications but to divide the sheep from the goats, and the wheat from the tares, and he tells us that even in heaven there are those who are the least and those who are the greatest.
Overall, as a concise and detailed overview of reformation history and some of the translational biases and corruptions in the KJV Bible I think this book has some value, the analysis of the deceptive choices of language used to establish and defend the power of the institutions of Church and State is an important matter and is addressed in some detail.
As an exercise in exposing some of the machinations of the power players in and around the A.V. translation I would say this could be a useful part of a beginning to a process of examination, but as I say, I feel it gets stuck in an only marginally relevant examination of the supposed character of King James, who did after all sponsor the successful completion of this; the most monumental blow to ecclesiastical corruption in all of modernity.
Attributing the fall of mankind to relatively minor differences in translations of scripture is plainly just foolishness and this may strike to the heart of where the authors have, in my humble opinion, lost the plot. Either they have failed to distinguish between the all pervasive sinful nature of man underlying this evil world, and the individual errors made by sinful men even when striving to do good, or maybe they have an entirely different agenda.
Since the subject has been raised, I think it is necessary to take into consideration the political realities of the position of the small island off the north west coast of Europe; right under the nose of, and already deeply entangled in a longstanding struggle against the Beast Empire, in relation to the the decision to not include the marginal notes of the Geneva bible. Of course there could be no excuse for interfering with the Word itself, but I think it is not difficult to see how the rulers, and even the general population of Britain might feel justified in being cautious about poking the beast with non scriptural writings found only in the margins of the Geneva bible. I think it is not inconceivable that such a provocation could have resulted in there being no independent Kingdom left from which to publish anything at all.
Ok, now we’re into the home straight, and it’s all about equating ecclesiastical authority (all of it seemingly) with rape. Therefore if you don’t agree with the authors you must be a rapist right?)
However in a bizarre twist of fate the authors themselves are taking a position of ecclesiastical authority in making this claim so …
Then lots of bible quotes about loving service, all impossible to object to, yet all in themselves appeals to the authority of Messiah and his appointed apostles, not just anyone who decides to chip in.
Then an odd claim that the incident mentioned in 3 John 1:9-10 is the “1st sign of apostasy” - I’m sure Judas will be relieved to hear this.
Eventually they finish hammering heroically at the open door of the gospel message of humble service, and then, as we begin to look back over the pages and pages of terrible things that we have read about, some as bad as rape, and some maybe even worse! all in direct opposition to our loving saviour, the suffering servant, it seems we are left with only one potential culprit for all this evil:
King James and his KJV !
So there we go, a s**t sandwich, with a tasty slice of reformation/gospel bread either side of a hit job on the KJV, but at least the bread was wholemeal.
At this stage I can’t help but wonder if the Great Ecclesiastical Conspiracy of the title is really the one of tiring out the saints.
[Daniel 7:25]
If these guys aren’t Jesuits then they missed their calling :)
All that being said, I thought this was a good reading of a good book and I did enjoy it :p
Cheers SWMBO.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-U4Pvod ... 5hbA%3D%3D
* in my humble opinion.
