GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Thou shall not suffer a witch to live

POSTED BY: SIMONWHO
UPDATED: Monday, December 5, 2022 09:41
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 15371
PAGE 1 of 3

Monday, April 27, 2009 2:44 AM

SIMONWHO


Just had this documentary brought to my attention after it was nominated for a BAFTA. It's strange to think that what looks like a throwback of two centuries in "Safe" when River is to be burnt at the stake for being a witch is still going on today:




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 27, 2009 3:17 AM

CYBERSNARK


POISONER!

Thou shalt not suffer a POISONER to live!!

Stupid King James with his stupid thaumatophobia and his stupid mis-translated Bible.

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 27, 2009 4:31 AM

BYTEMITE


The thing that makes me confused about the changes in that version... Surely witches weren't that big a problem in those day, and I've never heard of curses actually effecting their targets (though social karma can be a bitch!).

Going by some of the themes in Shakespeare plays from the time, I'd say that the motivation was entirely superstition. Probably kind of an obvious observation, but yeah.

I don't think witches even brew potions, do they? I mean, if potions were considered poisons then that might establish a basis for the reinterpretation, but I'm pretty sure the potion brewing thing is a popular misconception, carried over from those times (see Macbeth).

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 27, 2009 5:11 AM

FREELANCERTEX


See, this is why I hate religion. It makes people do fuckevil things. i know, its the people taking it to the extreme, and as the british dude (can't recall his name) said, any christian looking at this would be outraged, but still, how do you get so wrong that you can read a religious text and think something like this could EVER possibly be right?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 27, 2009 7:10 AM

CYBERSNARK


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
The thing that makes me confused about the changes in that version... Surely witches weren't that big a problem in those day, and I've never heard of curses actually effecting their targets (though social karma can be a bitch!).

Going by some of the themes in Shakespeare plays from the time, I'd say that the motivation was entirely superstition.


Like I said, James was a thaumatophobe. He was terrified of magic, and witches were just the most obvious target (committing the twin "crimes" of being Outsiders and women, meaning they could be persecuted openly in those days). The Bible translation he commissioned simply pandered to his personal hatred (as did Shakey, who was writing specifically to suck up to James and his court [who were descendents of Duncan & Macduff]).

Shakespeare was far too cool to have a problem with witches (or, if he did, to let it get in the way of a good story). Check out "The Tempest," "A Midsummer Night's Dream," and even "The Winter's Tale" (it's subtle, but Paulina's almost certainly either a white witch or a full-blown necromancer) --The Wyrd Sisters were far from the only magic-uses in the canon.

Hell, if he was still alive, Shakespeare would be a Buffyfan (and a Browncoat, of course).

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 10:38 AM

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.







NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 10:56 AM

BYTEMITE


Alchemists were considered sorcerers and witches, weren't they? And then, of course, there's the Hashashins, long considered enemies of the church and poisoners.

I'm trying to figure out where one or the other translation comes from. Doesn't much matter to me which is the right translation, because I'm not going to follow the bible anyway. Killing people by basis of their religious beliefs is rude.

If people in modern times have reinterpretted it as poisoner, or if some texts had poisoner concurrent with witch back in the medieval ages, I want to know why, as much as I'd want to know why poisoner would have been changed to witch.

Different sects/interpretations? Did Dominicans versus Franciscans have different versions?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 11:03 AM

ZAROVE


Sigh...

No one killed people over their Religious beliefs. Only in the 20th century was Witchcraft thought of as a Religion, or specific to religious practices.

The Ancient world, and even most of the Modern world, didn't understand Witchcraft to be a Pre-Christian pagan religion, and in fact the Pagans themselves killed witches.

Rome, for example, had a lot of Anti-Witch laws from the two to three centuries before Christ, which rest on the assumption that Witches where Universally evil.

Despite what modern Wiccans and other Neo-Pagans prefer to believe, Witchcraft was not really a part of any Pre-Christan pagan Religion. The Pagan world largely feared Witches. Witchcraft was not considered itself a Religion, and if you read old Grimoures form the middle ages you soon realise that all the rot about the Goddess and the Horned God and such don't appear in any of them.

All of tat is a late modern interpolation to History.


Witchcraft was not a Religion.


Witches where understood as evil people (Not all of whom where women) who used Magic to inflict harm on society, or to manipulate things to gain certain ends. They where practitioners of the Black Arts. Thats why people wanted them dead, because they caused harm.


And the "Different Versions' bit is missing my point. No Version in Midaevel or early modern times ever said "Poisoner", nor did the Ancient Vulgate translation, the Septuagint, or even the original Hebrew.

No copy of the Bible said "Poisoner".
Also, this is Protestant Britain, not Catholic France or Spain.

Besides, the Catholics used either the Vulgate, or the Douay-Rheims in English, they had no conflicting Bible versions.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 11:09 AM

ZAROVE


Also, to your question.

"If people in modern times have reinterpretted it as poisoner, or if some texts had poisoner concurrent with witch back in the medieval ages, I want to know why, as much as I'd want to know why poisoner would have been changed to witch.

Different sects/interpretations? Did Dominicans versus Franciscans have different versions?"

The claim originated with someone finding, and misquoting, a book by Reginald Scot, written in the 1600's which describes the Septuagint and Latin versions, and notes the root of the word is Poisoner, or Witch, if you will.

They quote only part of his work, and use this to prove that the King James Bible was mistranslated, in order to render it flawed. Many simply do it to render all Bibles flawed (Even though few Modern Bibles really are based on the KJV)

Many believe it just because in their minds it shows how corrupt and evil Christians are.

As I said earlier, Basically, its like the claim that Elohimn is plural so the Creation should read "In the beginning the gods created the Heavens and the Earth", or the idea that Jesus didn't exist and was based on earlier, Pre-Christian pagan sun gods, and his life is near identical to them, such as Mithras or Horus.

Its basically believed and passed along by those who want, for whatever reason, there to be flaws to Christianity, either overall or "Mainstream", to validate their own private beliefs.

Its no different from 9-11 Conspiracy theorists or people who think NASA faked the moon landing. Its rooted in fake evidence and badly understood history.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 11:26 AM

BYTEMITE


I didn't say they did, and am also familiar with the cult of Hecate. But Wiccan IS a religion NOW, hence my not killing them.

>_> Also, Muslims were killed. In the Crusades. Unless you're denying that. Be careful with blanket statements.

In any case, what are your sources? You're challenging widely accepted interpretations of history here, I'm going to need more than your word for it. I haven't read these biblical versions you speak of, and considering their age and probable value, they're probably in archives somewhere, so I doubt you've read them either.

You have not directly translated the Hebrew, only posted already translated lines where in replacing words are shown to make the line nonsense. That does not mean the line is representative of the original Hebrew.

So, again, where are your sources?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 11:33 AM

ZAROVE


Wiccans aren't witches in the same sense the Bible speaks of, so your point is moot.


Also, where the Muslims killed because of their beliefs? No, they weren't.

This is why the Enlightenment has done more harm than good, as all the same old Anti-Christian biases are carried on. Its not like the Crusades where fought by the entirety of Christendom unified against Islam, and that they took up arms to kill Muslims for no other reason than they where Muslim. Its also a misconception if you believe the Muslims where purely innocent. I realise you didn't say they where but, that is the implication here.

The First Crusade was called in the 1160's by Pope Urban the Second. Its original purpose was to defend the Eastern Empire (Now referred to as Byzantine, but then not known as that) from invasion.

This crusade proved largely successful in turning back the Muslim aggressors.

The remaining six Crusades where fought mainly over the right to make pilgrimage to the Holy Land. Muslims had occupied the Holy Land since the 700's, but in the 900's-1000's began to mistreat both Christians and Jews, escalating to the point that they where openly killed in the streets.

Now, the Crusades did feature abuse, such as the Sack of Constantinople later on, but they weren't originally the evil people tend to think of them as when the word is used.

And as I said, none of the Crusades killed Muslims on the basis of their beliefs, but rather over land rights.

So, its wrong to see this as people killing over beliefs.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 11:38 AM

BYTEMITE


And so heathens living in the holy lands had nothing to do with it, just like they have nothing to do with it now.

Still waiting on those sources.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 11:44 AM

ZAROVE


Onto the usual doubt over the legitimacy of what I say.



In any case, what are your sources?



I've studied Religion and History for 7 years now. I'm working towards an advanced degree in it.

My sources are basic History books, Hebrew Lexicons, Dictionaries, and texts, and of coruse the actual Bibles that we still have around.

In fact, most of this is available online, such as Strong's Exhaustive concordances, or the Bibels I listed.



You're challenging widely accepted interpretations of history here, I'm going to need more than your word for it.



But, by whom is it widely accepted? Certainly not Historians, and I see it mainly on Internet message boards and Websites run by Neo-Pagans or by Militant Atheists.

Sure, some well meaning people also repeat these claims, and I don't think everyone who does has malicious intent, with some sincerely believing in this, but that doesn't make it true.

Nor does it make it a widely accepted idea. I doubt most people in general have heard any of this.




I haven't read these biblical versions you speak of, and considering their age and probable value, they're probably in archives somewhere, so I doubt you've read them either.


They are available online, for anyone to read. You can google or yahoo search them.

I'll give you one source. There are others. Check online. I know Wesleyan University scanned the entire Wycliffe Bible onto their site, for instance, and you can find copies of the Coverdale or Geneva online too.

You can also download E-Sword, and get a lot of them, though Unfortunately, you can't get the Wycliffe Bible or Coverdale yet. Still, the Geneva and Bishops are available.

You can, as I said earlier, also get lexicons for Biblical Hebrew.

You can also search Amazon for hard copies.

Here is STudylight. It has the Coverdale, Bishops, and Geneva Bible, as well as Wycliffes and the KJV. (And others.)

http://www.studylight.org/desk/?l=en&query=Genesis+1&translation=mcb





You have not directly translated the Hewbrew, only posted already translated lines where in replacing words are shown to make the line nonsense. That does not mean the line is representative of the original Hebrew.



But, the word Kaphash doesn't mean Poisoner. I know as Ive studied Hebrew. You can too, or at least get a Lexicon.



So, again, where are your sources?



I've listed them.

And why am I challenged on this, when others who say King James Mistranslated the Bible to read Witch rather than Poisoner aren't?

It seems illogical to take me with some sort of hostility while believing the original far more willingly.

Especially since a simple online search can secure you the same knowledge I just presented.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 11:47 AM

ZAROVE


And so heathens living in the holy lands had nothing to do with it, just like they have nothing to do with it now.

Still waiting on those sources.



Patience is a virtue.

And, no, the Crusades didn't have anything to do with Heathens. In fact, neither Muslims nor Christians saw each other as Heathens. Muslims used the term "Infidel" and Christians "Herertic" to describe each other.

Still, if you read the History, the Crusades where about either Defending Europe, such as the Battle of Tours, or reclaiming the Holy Land for Christian Pilgrimages, not about forced conversions or killing infidels.

Do I need to source this as well? You can easily go to a reputable history source to see that I'm right.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 11:51 AM

BYTEMITE


I haven't been hostile, I've only asked you to establish where you're coming from, because I haven't heard of any of this.

I'm just trying to fact check.

Before I look at the hebrew bibles, are they posted in manner that's compatible to using a hebrew lexicon to translate them?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 11:54 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

And, no, the Crusades didn't have anything to do with Heathens. In fact, neither Muslims nor Christians saw each other as Heathens. Muslims used the term "Infidel" and Christians "Herertic" to describe each other.

Still, if you read the History, the Crusades where about either Defending Europe, such as the Battle of Tours, or reclaiming the Holy Land for Christian Pilgrimages, not about forced conversions or killing infidels.

Do I need to source this as well? You can easily go to a reputable history source to see that I'm right.



You say potato, I say "pohtahto." Well, not really. But in my mind, that's the exact same thing.

Americans didn't kill Native Americans because of their religious beliefs, but the fact is, differences in religious belief justified killing them for land.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 11:58 AM

ZAROVE


Actually no. Racial discrimination combined with greed caused Thomas Jefferson to want to expand America, and he forcibly removed the Native Americans in order to achieve his goal of a conquered, white America.

Jefferson started that, and didn't care about their religious beliefs.

In fact, missionaries to the Indians actually protested Jefferson sending the army in, writing letters to Congress or the President to plead with him to stop.

The removal of the Indians was done to facilitate what was later codified as "Manifest Destiny" of the white race taming and civilizing barbarian lands, and claiming the land as their own.

Many of the Indians had actually converted to Christianity already, and where still forced off their land.






NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 12:01 PM

ZAROVE


As to the Hebrew Bibles, I do not know. I usually use hardcopy as its easier on the eyes and despite studying it, my first language is English.

But you can do something easier if not, in that you can trace the word back in the Strong's.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 12:03 PM

BYTEMITE


Fine, it was a COMBINATION of racism, coupled with broad generalizations of Native Americans as heathens.

The analogy isn't perfect, but you didn't comment on it in regards to the point at hand, which is that Christians killed Muslims trying to reclaim what they perceived as their holy lands. What justified the Christians in this case?

EDIT: Actually, nevermind, that's also off the point at hand, which was specifically in regards to witches and the killing thereof for their practices and whatnot.

So, when I get the chance to look over those bibles and check the translations, I'll be good.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 12:10 PM

ZAROVE


Fine, it was a COMBINATION of racism, coupled with broad generalizations of Native Americans as heathens.

No, it wasn't. it was a combination of racism, greed, and lust for power. Jefferson never stated that they where Heathens, nor did he use this as justification for Appropriating their land.

Historical records do not indicate that the Religion of the Native Americans played any role in their removal by American forces.



The analogy isn't perfect, but you didn't comment on it in regards to the point at hand, which is that Christians killed Muslims trying to reclaim what they perceived as their holy lands. What justified the Christians in this case?



Well for centuries the Christians didn't kill Muslims over the Holy Land, but let them rule it. Only when Muslims began to actively persecute Christians, or even kill them, did this even become a COncern.

But the First Crusade, which was a massive success, really got the ball rolling. They thought that, if they could eaisly win agaisnt the Muslims, and thinking God was on their side, this means they also have the abiklity to reclaim the Holy Land to make it safe for Christian pilgrims.

They did not see the word as modern Democrats, or in the way we do regarding Nation-Sates, but rather in a Feudal Sense, and where demanding their Sacred and historical rights to make Pilgrimage. To them this made sense.

Also, I tire of the Christians getting all the flack, didn't the Muslims first threaten to conquer Europe? Why does no one mention this?

Because the defensive motive is crucial in understanding the Christians.

Also, it wasn't "The Christians" but the Catholics. The Eastern Orthodox Church did not take part in the Crusades.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 12:17 PM

BYTEMITE


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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 12:27 PM

MSA


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.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 12:37 PM

ZAROVE


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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 12:43 PM

ZAROVE


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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 2:39 PM

KATESFRIEND


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!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 11:50 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 6:53 AM

ZAROVE


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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 7:12 AM

ZAROVE


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.





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 23, 2009 6:05 AM

BYTEMITE


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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 23, 2009 6:17 AM

BYTEMITE


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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 23, 2009 6:18 AM

ZAROVE


I believe you do have the tenses, or something, wrong. Hebrew doesn't use the same Alphabet we do, so perhaps its just the transliteration I used.




I have a Programme on my PC but it won't open due to technical errors that links to two different lexicons. Ill try to repair whats wrong with it over the weekend. But here from another programe (E-Sword, which I told you of earlier) is what it defines it as.

H3784
ëּùׁó
kâshaph
kaw-shaf'
A primitive root; properly to whisper a spell, that is, to inchant or practise magic: - sorcerer, (use) witch (-craft).




I believe you can find Strong's concordance online as well, and with it you can simply look the word up and find he Hebrew original.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 23, 2009 6:22 AM

BYTEMITE


Hmm. I'll keep looking then.

Hebrew is tough, but fun. It's like a treasure hunt.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 23, 2009 6:22 AM

ZAROVE


Bytemite, you and I may just agree on something yet.


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.

I also have problems with the American Founding Fathers, and associated mythos around them.

Though I'm not sure you and I would agree politically, I also do not approve of Republicanism. But this is because I am a Loyalist and Monarchist. I do not support Absolute Monarchy, and prefer Constitutional, but do think the Monarch needs more power than just a symbol or figurehead.

This may be seen as even more Antiquat4ed of course, but I think it a better system.

Of course now I subject myself to the usual complaints about Monarchy, and many of those as mythic as the complaints about Christian history, such as people telling me how we'd lack freedom, or how we'd all be ordered about by one guy. Thats not what I support, but I wager I'll hear enough of it.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 23, 2009 6:31 AM

BYTEMITE


Eh. What is a monarch besides a strong executive figure? If some nations have Presidents, I don't have much problem with monarchs.

Of course, I do prefer a more equitable system... I have issues with class structure as an instrument as oppression, and strong class structure as prone to corruption. I prefer small, local governments, where a vote is given to everyone, and those who truly care about or are effected by an issue are encouraged to work out compromise that is acceptable to all parties.

So if you think YOUR ideas are antiquated, heck, I'm tribal!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 23, 2009 6:35 AM

ZAROVE


Also, for the last two points.


Most accused Witches where Hanged, not Burned. At least this was true in Western Europe. The Orthodox Church in the East was much more lenient, demanding Penance and perhaps some community service for Witchcraft.

Still, the bulk of the Witch Trials, contrary to popular imagination, actually where conducted by the State, not by the Church. There are even instances of the Church attempting to block Witch Trials.

For the most part, they where seen as civil affairs, rather than Ecclesiastical ones.

As to the people and their knowledge of the Bible, its a complex issue, but the base of it is that I never said they where completely ignorant of everything in the Bible, but they didn't understand it by and large.

Even many clergy in Wycliffe's time only barely understood enough Latin o get by.

The Catholic Church had based its entire Service, known as the Mass, upon a pre-arranged order, which is true even today. Thus, what happened at one Parish happened at all others around the whole of the world. It was planned and scheduled int he Missal.

Common Bible stories where recounted, as well as famous teachings, and so where known, but the bulk of the biblical material, as well as actual historical context of most of the stories recounted, where not.

So, while they weren't 100% ignorant of the Bible, the common man wasn't reading his Bible nightly, and was not well versed in it.

Its rather analogous to today, when many people know of the Ten Commandments ( Tough most can't cite them all) and know some basic Bible stories, but simply do not know a good deal about the Bible.

Indeed, look how easy it is to fool people into believing that Witch was mistranslated into Poisoner, or how many people think "cleanliness is next to Godliness" is in the Bible!

conversely, many people do not realise that Judea was run by Client Kings, that Israel had a civil war and broke up into two nations when Solomon died, or that Jesus was sent back and fourth between Herod and Pilate at his trial.

I've heard a lot of things claimed about the Bible over the years that where horribly inaccurate regarding tis content, and people easily believe claims made base don distortions of the text.

This is in a day and age when Literacy is high.

Imagine a world in which Literacy was about 15% of the population or less.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 23, 2009 6:43 AM

BYTEMITE


Huh. I thought burning them was supposed to cleanse them. Do you know why it was hanging? I mean that my impression is in those times that certain offenses had sort of standard punishments, and there was often some symbolic reason for them.

Also, what about White Witches, is there any historical context to that, or has that been invented?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 23, 2009 6:46 AM

ZAROVE


Eh. What is a monarch besides a strong executive figure? If some nations have Presidents, I don't have much problem with monarchs.

Of course, I do prefer a more equitable system... I have issues with class structure as an instrument as oppression, and strong class structure as prone to corruption. I prefer small, local governments, where a vote is given to everyone, and those who truly care about or are effected by an issue are encouraged to work out compromise that is acceptable to all parties.

So if you think YOUR ideas are antiquated, heck, I'm tribal!



Actually thats not too far off mine. I'm a Neo-Feudalist. I'd retain the rights people have won over their own lives, such as freedom of speech and assembly, and don't mind voted in small areas, I just find voting for leaders daft. Its a popularity contest, and we all know Popular people do not always make good leaders.

I'd simply allow each City to have as its principle leader either an appointed or hereditary leader, though cities may elect leaders, they are smaller. I'd call this bloke an Earl. I'd then let each County be lead by a Count, and larger areas by Dukes.

The King, sitting atop this mess, basically exists as a supreme judge, rather than as an absolute ruler. His main task is to defend the realm, as well as to make sure the Counts and Earls work in harmony with each other, and to ensure the peoples rights are maintained.

The King would not, however, directly rule each Fief.

This also allows greater freedom in smaller communities, which would determine their own character within the greater whole. IE, a Jewish Feif can decide to close its post offices and mail delivery services on Saturday rather than Sunday, and so could an officially Seventh Day Adventist Feif. They couldn't force people to follow those faiths, but could, if the area is mainly occupied or run by these groups, make hose accommodation's.


Just as an example.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 23, 2009 6:47 AM

ZAROVE


Burning was an old Roman punishment for treason, and seen as the most painful.

Witches where seen as Criminals, not traitors.

Incidentally, Heretics where burned, as they where seen as Traitors to the faith.

Also, the idea of a White witch did not exist. The root of the English word Witch is a clue, as its crooked, or bent, and a Witch was universally understood as evil.


No one thought there where good witches.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 23, 2009 7:14 AM

ZAROVE


Oh but on some occasions witches where burned, for ocnvienince, local custom, or also accused of Blasphemy or crimes against the state.

But most Witches where Hanged, with a few beheaded, or drowned.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 23, 2009 7:23 AM

OUT2THEBLACK


Something like this is what searchers will find helpful ;

an Interlinear Hebrew translation :
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 23, 2009 7:26 AM

ZAROVE


Thanks!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 23, 2009 11:35 AM

OUT2THEBLACK


Just happy to be doin' good works...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 23, 2009 11:54 AM

WASHNWEAR


Quote:

Originally posted by ZAROVE:
Oh but on some occasions witches where burned, for ocnvienince, local custom, or also accused of Blasphemy or crimes against the state.

But most Witches where Hanged, with a few beheaded, or drowned.




Burned for convenience?!

Sorry - that just sorta caught my eye...carry on.



donttalkbackjustdrivethecarshutyourmouthiknowwhatyouaredontsaynothinkeepyourhandsonthewheeldontturnaroundthisisforreal

Still...what would Rorschach do?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 23, 2009 8:54 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Zarove,
I had thought James Stewart was Half Scot by his King and half pure English Royalty by Mary, and raised and educated in France to protect his life from Elizabeth, ruling Scotland in absentia - am I incorrect?

I did not mean that nowhere in the world is freedom currently cherished as in the U. S., but the Colonial revolt and Independence was the biggest blow to the Empire and started the fad. This resulted directly from the widespread publishing of the KJB, which resulted from Liz eliminating Mary - of course the result from Henry VIII's shenanigans.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 24, 2009 5:10 AM

MIKEWILLIAMSON


Quote:

Originally posted by ZAROVE:
Also, to your question.

Its no different from 9-11 Conspiracy theorists or people who think NASA faked the moon landing. Its rooted in fake evidence and badly understood history.




Funny, that's my position on religion.:)

The Inquisition killed people over their religious beliefs. "Saint" Olaf gave pagans the choice to convert to Christianity, leave Norway, or be emasculated and blinded.

While I don't think Christianity OF ITSELF is evil, don't pretend that massive evil hasn't been done in its name, and it certainly has been used as an excuse to kill people over religious beliefs.

Certainly, there were economic bases to the crusades. But I guarantee a number of crusaders did use it as an excuse to kill in Christ's name.

While modern Wicca is in fact evolved from Christianity in large part (which I find hysterical when talking to the fluffy bunny sect) (and my wife was the first serving Soldier to wear a pentacle as a locally authorized uniform device, and did conduct rituals at Ft Meade, so I do know what I'm talking about), and the numbers of "witches" killed during the Middle Ages is grossly exaggerated, I can still offer examples of violence done against them, and prejudice against them, BY CHRISTIANS, quoting the Bible as justification.

Don't make me dig up the proscription on crossbows against Christians, but fine to use on heathens, or the SQUARE BULLETS developed to kill Turks because they would make more horrible wounds (They thought).

And since the Bible insists that PI = 3, that locusts have 4 legs, that hail and snow are kept in granaries in heaven, etc, please don't pretend it's anything more than yet another mythology.

It's great that you believe substantial parts of it, it's wonderful that you use it in a positive fashion to improve your life, and it seems you also use it to enlighten others by example. All great things. But one can do that with ANY mythology, if the person in question is decent and compassionate.

Recent novels by Michael Z. Williamson
CONTACT WITH CHAOS, Apr 09 from Baen Books
BETTER TO BEG FORGIVENESS..., Nov 07 from Baen Books
http://www.MichaelZWilliamson.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 24, 2009 5:13 AM

MIKEWILLIAMSON


Quote:

Originally posted by SimonWho:
Just had this documentary brought to my attention after it was nominated for a BAFTA. It's strange to think that what looks like a throwback of two centuries in "Safe" when River is to be burnt at the stake for being a witch is still going on today:




The interesting thing about African tribal superstition is that in multiple interviews, the interviewee will admit to a confidante that their magic is fake.

"But we have to pretend we have powerful magic, because (that tribe over there) has a shaman who can turn into a giant frog, cause people to fall asleep, raise boils and make leopards arrive to eat people."

It's a mutual BS society, where no one has made the jump that everyone else's magic is also merely PR.

Recent novels by Michael Z. Williamson
CONTACT WITH CHAOS, Apr 09 from Baen Books
BETTER TO BEG FORGIVENESS..., Nov 07 from Baen Books
http://www.MichaelZWilliamson.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 24, 2009 6:37 AM

ZAROVE


mIKE-



, that's my position on religion.:)

You may have any take you want, but this would ultimatley include your religion. One of those bits of badly understood history is the history of what words mean, and what things actually are. No one is non-religious, even though some say they are today. Religion is really simply a set of belefs regarding the world we live in, and concerns itself with establishing the ocntext by which we understand it and our lives. It is a set of beleifs regarding the nature of our world and our existance.

So, religion isnt somehtign anyone lacks, or can eb free of. its foundaitonal, and in fact nessisary for us to have in order to udnerstand the world we live in. You can change relgiions, but you cannog be free of it.




The Inquisition killed people over their religious beliefs. "Saint" Olaf gave pagans the choice to convert to Christianity, leave Norway, or be emasculated and blinded.


And Saiot Patrick insisted that no one die, and was threatened with death by Pagans routinely in Ireland. He still managed to win converts peacefully. Saint Alban was martyred at the hands of a Pagan King because he protected a Priest and refused to recant his own conversion to CHristainity. Saint Jhn CHrystom sought only dialouge thinkign that Pagans coudl be converted by sheer reason.

No one ever said all Christains where always good, but oen thing I tire of is the idiotic attacks on Christianity, which basicllay focus only on the bad, and act as if this composed the bulk of Christain History. The eay it spresented, all fo Europe was conquered byt he sword and Christainity imposed upon the people by force. Actually, this isn't true by and large. With a handful of exceptions, such as Olof, or the Campaigns of CHarlimege, which where largely politiclaly motivated, Christianity spread throughout Europe peacefully along ROman Trade Routes.

Pagans tended to convert to Christainity because Christyaisn offered them a consistant theology, and actually provided them help. As Christianity focused mainly on doign good to others,which the Pagan religions (Plural, it was never a single religion) didn't, peopel saw in Christianity a better way to ive.

If you jst focus on the Olofs, sure, CHristainity becomes a dark force in History, but there where many more St. Albans and St. Patricks and St. Augustines than there where St. Olofs.

And even Olof was misunderstood. He didnt make that offer simply because he was a cruel man, but because the Norwegean Pagans where a particulalry violent and hostile brood.( Check their hisotry.) CHristainity tamed them into a civilised people, but those who rfused wanted to carry on in their Pagan ways, which Inlcuded rape and pillage.

That may not be th ePC thing to say, and we may prefer ot think of them as meley having different religiosu beleifs abotu gods and different rituals, and the Eeeeeeeeevil Christaisn came alogn to kill them on that basis alone, but this just sint so. The Norwegeian Oagans weren't peaceful, and didn't at all care about the rights of other peopel themselves.

But who cares about real History? If the point is to tarnish Christanity, Olof killed those who refused to convert because he was mean, anxdd is represnetitive of how Christainty spread throgujut Europe, ebcause that way Christainity is a bad relgiion soaked in blood. WHo cares hwy he did hwat he id or the real hisotry? WHo cares about all the peaceful mizsions that gradually converted Europe? This makes it easier to hate Christainity.

Just ike pointing to 9-11 and pretendign that represents Islam makes it easier to hate Islam.

Hey, did you know Jews slaughtered some peopel in villages of Eastern Europe in the 1100's? I guess all Jews are evil too. Jews also prodiuced Bernie Madoff so I guess they really all are greedy theives.

Obviously, focusign on negative examples is unhelpful.



While I don't think Christianity OF ITSELF is evil, don't pretend that massive evil hasn't been done in its name, and it certainly has been used as an excuse to kill people over religious beliefs.



And, the same uis true of Atheism. The Soviet Union killed peopel over their religiosu beleifs, so did the Cult Of Reason lead by Le Mattre. If you beleived in Gods existance, and especially if you remained a Christain, his gang woudl kill you.

But its not an accurate assessment of Christaintiy to think that its doen massive evil and this is the main thrust of its History.

Christainity was mainly a Pacifistic Religion until about 1160 whent he firts Crusade was called, with only a few exceptions, each beign out of some nessesity, like Olof, or politically motivated as with CHarlemegne.

Even after the 1160's Chfistainity did far mroe good in society than evil, and tryign to boil the Hisoty down to attrocities liek the Inquesition and Crusades does a great disservice to the actual history invovled.

Even the Crusades wheren't as bad as they have been depicted, and if you look into them most of the abuses wheren't done by the CHurches sanction, but actually agaisnt its wishes, either by orders of variosu Greedy Kings, such as the King of France, or by the peasants who became knights getting greedy, such as the Sack of COnstantinople.




Certainly, there were economic bases to the crusades. But I guarantee a number of crusaders did use it as an excuse to kill in Christ's name.



But, what was the explicit reason to kill in CHrists name? Was it JUST murdering those who refused to follow CHrist?

As I explained above, the actual motivation for he First Crusade was to defend Europe form invasion, and the actual motivation for tryign to reclaim the Holy land rested on Land Rights and an attempt to make the area safe for Christain Pilgrims.

The Crusaders did not kill Random Muslims simply because they whee Muslim, they killed in order to make the areas of Pilgrimage safe.

You'd have to understand it form their position, and lookat it int he same eay they did, regardign ancient rights and claims to land, to understand the actual reason, which was really rooted in their Feudal mindset.

But they didn't just kill in th name of Christ because the others wheren't Christyain, and left Muslims alone who wheren't in the Holy Land, or else posed no real threat.




While modern Wicca is in fact evolved from Christianity in large part (which I find hysterical when talking to the fluffy bunny sect) (and my wife was the first serving Soldier to wear a pentacle as a locally authorized uniform device, and did conduct rituals at Ft Meade, so I do know what I'm talking about), and the numbers of "witches" killed during the Middle Ages is grossly exaggerated, I can still offer examples of violence done against them, and prejudice against them, BY CHRISTIANS, quoting the Bible as justification.



Which I've explained already.

The Witches where by and large Christain. They didn't understand htemselves as Withces usually, ebcause the Withc Hunts whee usually just a fiasco that was the result of Mass Hyseria. It was the same Phoenomenon as the McArthy hearings, which saw a commie behind every corner.

The Witch Trials where rooted in peopels anxiety and fears, and this lead them to eant to externalise those feelings and they used Witches as a mean to do this. Most of the accused durign the main witch hunts wheren't actually Witches.

Thogh durign the less strident days, killed when Withc Crazes where not occuring, where osmetimes actulaly guilty of some occultic practices, hwoever, readign their Grimouares reveals they where not Pagan, as they line the pages with references to Christ or Jesus or God, or Satan.




Don't make me dig up the proscription on crossbows against Christians, but fine to use on heathens, or the SQUARE BULLETS developed to kill Turks because they would make more horrible wounds (They thought).


Which isnt relaly on topic. But if you insist, what about the Soviet Union killing Orthodox Prietss because they where Prietss? What about the Soviets breakng up worhsuip services and murdeirng Muslims, Jews, and Christains based soely on their beleif in an attemto to creae an Atheistic State?


Yeah people have doen crappy things to each other, but thats Human Nature. Muslims had weapons they codl use on CHristains durign the Crusades, but not on their Brother Muslims.

Jews where able to charge mroe for goods and services ro Non-Jews.

Atheists in the Soviet Union where able to outright kill you for beign anyhtign but an Ahtiest.


Whats your point?

Your basiclaly describing Human Nature. And sicne my claim ehre was that Withccraft wasnt udnerstood as a Relgiion, and the Bible was not mistranslated, I find your need to attack Christainity rather puzzling.





And since the Bible insists that PI = 3,



Not this again.

No, the Biel doesn't insist Pi is 3. This complaint was created by someone with too much time on their hands and too little sense.

Its from 1 Kings 7.

From 1 Kings 7


23. And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.
24. And under the brim of it round about there were knops compassing it, ten in a cubit, compassing the sea round about: the knops were cast in two rows, when it was cast.



This passage describes King Solomons palace and includes a description of a pool. This pool is not really signifigant, but is describesd by the Scribe keeping this record.

No where in this passage does it go into a lenghty disussion on mathematics where it tells you about the circumference of a circle and insists thta Pi is equel to 3. It just describes a pool, and they didn't need ot get thigns right to within the 12 decimal point to allow the average reader to understand the general size and shape of a relatively unimportsant pool in King Solomons palace.





that locusts have 4 legs,


Actually this is a piculiarity in literal English translations. The Hebrew use of the phrase actually refers to a creature moving about in a horizontal way, which was expressed as having four legs, as its like a four legged animal.

Its like the "FIrmament" in the Heavens. Many like to claim this proves they thoguth the sky was a solid dome, when in fact Ancient Hebrew was incapable of expressing open space, and needed a terminator.

As to the legs, it was just an expression. When translated literlaly into English it sounds odd, but its really just an expression.

And since the ancient Hebrews ate locusts, I'd think that even if the bible was a man-made documnt they'd know they had six legs, so I hope you consider this as not just an excuse. Surly your not arguing they where just stupid and couldn't count the number of legs on a common food staple they ate all their lives.



that hail and snow are kept in granaries in heaven, etc, please don't pretend it's anything more than yet another mythology.



But all three of your examples are false.


Graniries in Heaven? That ones a new one to me.

But the Locusts havign four legs was a fiure of speech describign how they walked, and the bibel doesnt insist that Pi is 3, it just doenst go into grpahic detail because Scribes wanted ot describe a palace, not get everyhtigns precicel measurements right tot he lasrt decimal.

So, the whole "Mythology" charge is a bit overblown.




It's great that you believe substantial parts of it, it's wonderful that you use it in a positive fashion to improve your life, and it seems you also use it to enlighten others by example. All great things. But one can do that with ANY mythology, if the person in question is decent and compassionate.



Why did you even feel compelled to post then?

It seems you have this odd need to udnermine CHristainity, then tell others how its great they beleive in aprt sof it and imrpvoed their lives.

And considerign that yor exampels are just the sameold rot as Ive heard many times, which just doens't add up when studyign real history, it seems maybe you need to look into the claism you make a bit more carefully.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 24, 2009 7:23 AM

MSA


In the original Hebrew manuscript, the author used the word m'khashepah to describe the person who should be killed. The word means a woman who uses spoken spells to harm others - e.g. causing their death or loss of property. Clearly "evil sorceress" or "woman who does evil magic" would be the most accurate phrases in today's English usage for this verse.

Also,The King James Version and Revised English Bible use the term "witch." In North America, at this time, the term normally refers to Wiccans -- the followers of the Wiccan religion. According to the Scofield Reference Bible this verse from the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) was written in the year 1491 BCE. This is some 650 years before the origin of the Celtic people circa 850 BCE from whom some elements of Wicca were taken. So Exodus 22:18 can hardly be referring to Wiccans.




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.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 24, 2009 7:53 AM

ZAROVE


Actually the term is Gender neutral. It doesn't refer only to women, but can include men.

Men where, in fact, more likely to be accused of Witchcraft than women in Ancient Israel.

That said, Wicca derives the bulk of its ideas from 19th century romantic notions and Margaret Murray's book, but I've forgotten the title so need to look it up. I do not think Wicca actually derived anything form Paganism in the past.

I cold be wrong as Wicca changes rapidly, but last I checked a few years ago, other than the names of the gods they use, and general relation one to another, Wicca tends to be wholly modern.


One last quibble, Scofield did not claim anything happened in any year BCE. He would have used BC. BCE is an attempt to de-Christianise the calender, which itself is daft since its based (thouh inaccurately) on the time Jesus was suppose to have been born.

I always found our cultures need to attack Christianity an odd thing to study, as it seems so prevalent.

it also renders people willing to suspend all reason and go along with stupidity. Like when Mike said the Bible insists Pi is 3 because of a reference to a pool that used estimated values.


Then again, MSA thinks I don't know what the word belies means and that I'm an idiot, so I suppose anything is attackable.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 24, 2009 7:59 AM

ZAROVE


Jewel, I am sorry, I overlooked our excel;ent post.


Zarove,
I had thought James Stewart was Half Scot by his King and half pure English Royalty by Mary, and raised and educated in France to protect his life from Elizabeth, ruling Scotland in absentia - am I incorrect?

I did not mean that nowhere in the world is freedom currently cherished as in the U. S., but the Colonial revolt and Independence was the biggest blow to the Empire and started the fad. This resulted directly from the widespread publishing of the KJB, which resulted from Liz eliminating Mary - of course the result from Henry VIII's shenanigans.



Yes indeed! Though to be fair, by 1776 the Authorised Version had become ubiquitous in households and was already Printed. However, it required the Royal seal to do so thus the crown retained power over the publication and distribution. The American revolt lead to that good thing, amongst the few good things it accomplished, in hat it increased the availability and distribution of the Bible.

And contrary to those who think Americas founders wanted a complete seperation of Church and State that forbade the Goernment ever financing anything to do wiht Religion ( except thier own, which they simply rebrand as nonreligion), Congress itself published the Authorised Version for general distribution.

Of course, Americas founders wherent like the modern Evangelicals, nor sid their vision coincide with the modern Evangelical vision, but they where harldy militant secularists either.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Nathan Fillion’s show The Rookie is back…but now on Tuesdays 8 pm Eastern
Wed, February 1, 2023 23:13 - 2 posts
CSTS 2023 Art Contest Ends January 28th 2023
Tue, January 17, 2023 00:27 - 1 posts
Where are the Extraterrestrial Civilizations
Sun, January 15, 2023 10:03 - 46 posts
Testing.
Sun, January 8, 2023 22:43 - 57 posts
I accidentally hit the sign up words in the upper right corner and got page not found. Anybody else?
Tue, December 27, 2022 12:37 - 11 posts
Time to break out some Christmas movies!!! Ho ho ho
Sat, December 24, 2022 17:29 - 33 posts
New Sign-up page for Fireflyfans.net is not working
Sun, December 18, 2022 13:45 - 3 posts
Did anyone notice, in Andor...?
Sun, December 18, 2022 11:36 - 5 posts
Best sci-fi soundtrack?
Mon, December 5, 2022 19:48 - 27 posts
What is your favourite historical or war film/television show???
Mon, December 5, 2022 19:47 - 31 posts
Joss Whedon to direct 'Glee'
Mon, December 5, 2022 09:57 - 29 posts
Is Joss Whedon finished as a film maker, is his future destiny to be some muttering male version of Brigitte Bardot, Jane Fonda
Mon, December 5, 2022 09:51 - 4 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL