Thou shall not suffer a witch to live

POSTED BY: SimonWho
UPDATED: Monday, December 5, 2022 19:41
VIEWED: 25190
PAGE 3 of 11

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 10:17 PM

Hmm, I still see it as religious outrage, but good points.

MSA

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 10:27 PM

um Zarove I seldom make this comment , but for someone with your " education" you lack an understanding of basic grammar, composition and spelling which seriously belies ( look it up ) your claims to the above referenced education.

To love someone is to see a miracle invisible to others.
--Francois Mauriac
It's fuzzy-minded liberal thinking like that that gets you eaten.

ZAROVE

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 10:37 PM

Im dyslexic.

Also, my grammar is actually good. Spelling is bad.

I just use a stilted form of English, as opposed to conversational prose. Besides, this is a message board not a thesis. I don't try too hard as usually I'm just disbelieved and ridiculed for saying what I just did.

Talk to enough Jesus Mythers or Dawkins Drones, and you loose a lot of interest in the niceties. But I remain polite.
But don't take my word for anything I say, look up the information. That is where proof of my claims are to be found.

ZAROVE

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 10:43 PM

After re-reading my posts, I do not see any obvious Grammatical errors.

So, perhaps you, as most do regretably, think the Grammar is bad simply because the spelling is?

Even then, Ive done a lot more for this baord than others in cleaning it up, and took the time to. Usually I dont as its hard for me to.

But I do not see my grammar as particulalry bad in the above posts.

KATESFRIEND

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 12:39 AM

Zarove, thanks for the wonderfully fascinating and entertaining thread. I learned a lot and enjoyed your point of view as very refreshing and honest. Thanks for the read!

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 9:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ZAROVE:
I hate to break it to you all but, just like the Similarities between Jesus and Horus, or the claim that the Creation account in Genesis is referring to a Plurality of gods, this is actually a hoax.

King James didn't intentionally mistranslate the Bible in order to persecute Witches, and the word used can't possibly be Poisoner.

For one thing, if this was all because James feared Magic, and he is the original reason why the word "Witch" is found in our Bibles, why is the same word used in the Coverdale Bible in the same place in 1535? This is 31 years before James Stuart was born.

Coverdale Exodus 22:18 Thou shalt not suffre a witch to lyue.

Its also in the Geneva Bible, of 1587, and the bishops Bible of 1568.

Geneva-Exo 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to liue.

Bishops- Exo 22:18 (22:17) Thou shalt not suffer a witche to lyue.

Both of those Bibles where translated before James Ascended the Throne, and the Geneva Bible in the Reign of Queen Mary, who had begun a brutal purge of Protestants, causing several to flee to Geneva, Switzerland, where it was produced. (Hence the name)

The Bishops Bible was produced in England after the Ascension of Queen Elizabeth the First.

Even the Wycliffe Bible of 1395 says Witch! It just renders the word a plural.

Wycliffe 1395-Exodus 22:18 Thou schalt not suffre witchis to lyue.

The Latin Vulgate follows suit, and in fact Wycliffe's was translated from it.

Its hard to believe James Stuart was able to corrupt those Bibles long before he was Born, or those composed shortly after his Birth, or before his reign.

So, the claim that James was fearful of Magic and thus sought to Alter the Bible to reflect his fear of Witches, and to legitimise it, just doesn't stand up.

Then theres the Question of rather its even a Mistranslation.

For that, we look to the Hebrew.

The word in the Hebrew is Kashaph, which means "Witch" or "One who practices the black arts". It doesn't mean "Poisoner", and in fact it wouldn't make sense to think it did, since the same word is used in Daniel 2:2, and if it means Poisoner, and not "Witch" (Its actually translated as "Sorcerer" in this passage of Daniel in the KJV) how then do we explain the following?

From the KJV.

1. And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams, wherewith his spirit was troubled, and his sleep brake from him.
2. Then the king commanded to call the magicians, and the astrologers, and the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans, for to shew the king his dreams. So they came and stood before the king.

If you modify it to make Kashaph mean "Poisoner" you get a strange reading.

1. And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams, wherewith his spirit was troubled, and his sleep brake from him.
2. Then the king commanded to call the magicians, and the astrologers, and the poisoners, and the Chaldeans, for to shew the king his dreams. So they came and stood before the king.

Why would Nebuchadnezzar summon poisoners to discern the meaning of his dreams?

I'm sorry but, the idea that the King James Bible deliberatively mistranslated the Bible in order to give a basis for the persecution of women as Witches is just daft.

In fact, even the Sexism of the day is overstated, and women did have rights in Jacobean Britain.

Don't believe everything you hear about the "Real History of Christianity", much of it is simply a repetition of old Urban legends that lack any real credibility.

Be a little more Skeptical.

Quoted for truth and kudos.

The decision for King James to publish his Bible was the beginning of the modern age of reason, and freedom. Those of you who are not Americans may not realize just how pivotal this event was to world history.

ZAROVE

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 4:53 PM

I wouldn't say that only Americans can appreciate how Pivotal the significance of the Authorised Version. (The real name of the KJV, by the way. King James did not name this after himself.)

After all, James himself was a Scot, and ruled Scotland since he was 6 years old, beginning in 1572. In 1604 he assumed the (separate) Throne of England. The English Throne was shared by Wales, so now he ruled England, Wales, and Scotland, and from the days of Elizabeth he inherited a firm Ireland.

The Authorised version was also not the first English Bible, and took a long while to gain its popularity, though was immediately adopted by the Church which the King was supreme Governor of.

The significance of the Authorised Version was the culmination of effort to make a Bible that was both accurate and in the language of the common man, readily understandable to all. The dream was to bring the people to the word of God and let them, for themselves, learn Gods ways.

It was the crowning achievement, but it was not the only step.

Indeed, the proccess began n the 1360's with John Wycliffe arguing that the Church needed reform, and later translating, by hand and alone, the Latin VUlgate Bible into English, somehtign that caused quiet a controversy when he did this. During Wycliffes day and age, the bIble wa sonly in Latin, and even many Priests had no deep understanding, knowing just enough Latin to get by services in Mass.

(Which also belies {and yes I knew what it meant before} the claim that the Eeeeeeeevil Christains, base don reading their Bibles, commited this or that attrocity in the Middle Ages. Most where illiterate and had no funcitonal knowledge of the Bible, other than stories heard at Mass.)

Wycliffe escaped harm, but shortly after his death a law was passed that prevented any Translation of the bible in the vernacular.

In the 1500's the Protestant reformation began, when in 1517 Martin Luther nailed the 95 Theses on the Church door in Wittenberge.

William Tyndale became a part of this, arguing for the common man to be able to read the Bible, and decide for himself what Gods word said.

Despite the people where who hate religion because of how it causes people to do evil things, Religion really shaped society, and continues to. No one really lacks a religion, because Religion is really simply the way we see the world an understand it. Its a set of beliefs about the nature of our existence, and the meaning of the same. Even Anti-Religious zealots like Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens actually are Religious, as they possess a worldview that informs them how the world works.

They simply have different doctrines and preach that God doesn't exist.

(Besides, all the people who continually rag on Religion for all the evil it has done always ignore the good.)

So, while the King James Bible has certainly been a great and historical achievement, it was the end result of a movement toward allowing freedom of the people to read Gods word in their own language and in an accurate translation, but it was not th beginning of the process, and the overall impact of the translation rests in how it influenced thoughts and language as literature, and how it was used, rather than in the fact that it was translated. By this time 9 English Bibles had been translated. (excluding derivatives like he Great Bible, or Taverner's.)

In fact, the King James Bible is largely based on Tyndale's work, and the New testament is about 80-85% Tyndale.

Still, as this is British History, anyone descending form British colonies, and of course Great Britain herself, should appreciate it.

ZAROVE

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 5:12 PM

Oh, and the "Age of Reason" is a synonym for the Enlightenment, which occurred in the 1700's.

As the Enlightenment was actually Anti-Christian.

The teachings of the Enlightenment where that Reason and Reason alone was paramount to Human endeavours and all things we believed in must be rooted in reason. This is actually not so bad, nor necessarily Anti-Christian, ans in fact is what the Rationalists argued and all but one of them was a Christan. The trouble was, the Enlightenment also developed some rather obvious doctrines of its own, that, as with the Neo-Atheism that largly builds on Enlightenment arguments, forces you to arrive at a singular conclusion. (WHich is Ironic as they claim this is Freethought.)

The Enlightenment wanted either to Abolish Christianity (Religion, as they only knew Christianity before) and replace it with the adoration of Human reason.

It also sought to overturn Monarchical rule and replace it with Republicanism, and sought to build on the rights of man and the principles of Liberty.

The Enlightened where the first to argue that the Church had brought about the Dark Ages (WHich is now known as a Historical myth, but still believed by the man on the street) and was party to the destruction of the Roman Empire, and began for the first time to claim that Christianity brought about a form of bondage that prevented men from being truly free. This soon also began to be linked to the idea that Christianity was also irrational and absurd, for it violated the laws of Nature.

Thus began the argument that Religion enslaved mankind and needs to be broken, in favour of a new religion (Later people would argue that all religion as bad and claim to be nonreligious, but the early Enlightenment didn't think this way)

This was mainly because the teachings of the Church went against the libertine values of the Enlightenment, and because the Enlightenment saw itself as a revival of ancient Greek and Roman thought. (It wouldn't be till the 19th century that the idea came about hat it was Purely Atheistic, and somehow people who followed this thinking where not religious.As if Atheism means you have no religion.)

The Enlightenment also linked the Church to the King, and since the King was perceived as the enemy of freedom, and certainly as a block to the creation of an "Ideal republic" that would bring nothing but peace and prosperity, they revolted, killed the Royal Family, and established their Republic.

Then, in true Revolutionary fashion, turned on each other, and eventually Ropesphere began killing his political opponents. This lead to the Ten Year reign of Terror, and finally ended up destroying the dictatorial French Republic that claimed to be base don Freedom. (The same story as the Soviet Union, though it did manage 75 years.)

Some claim America was also founded on the Enlightenment, but this isn't entirely true. America was similar to the French Revolution in its ideals, but this is because the American Founders based their ideas on the same sources as the Enlightenment, notably John Locke. However, the American founder's began their revolt before the Enlightenment began, and did not use Hume, nor believe in forcing freedom onto the masses or reshaping all of society, but letting people make their own decisions.

This doesn't excuse their own Treason tot he Crown, nor negate the damage their philosophy has brought our world, but nevertheless those changes in ideas on ow Government run are the standard, basic ideas held by near everyone around the world.

Although not quiet, as most want a Democracy and Americas Founders universally hated Democracy. America was established as a Constitutional Republic.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, July 23, 2009 4:05 PM

Hmm. Maybe I'm getting the stresses wrong, but this is what I've found so far.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=03728&ve
rsion=kjv

Also, you're saying they DIDN'T burn witches? They may not have been able to READ the bible, but to say people don't know WHAT the bible said doesn't seem reasonable. If that were true, then wouldn't they not have known the ten commandments? They would learn what the bible said through the teaching of those who either could read it or had been passed the stories through oral tradition.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, July 23, 2009 4:17 PM

Although it's true about the U.S.A founders, they didn't trust their fellow man at all. Only if they had enough money and education... One of the reasons I actually don't like them, OR their antiquated ideas of Republic government rule.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE