By Timothy
_____________________
Dear Craig,
The following is my response to Troy.
Please post.
For me, the topic is now closed. I have answered all of his claims and points, several of his points being very good.
But I still must conclude Troy is a Jesuit Coadjutor repeating mantras of the Order uttered many times before in Rome's attempt to move the Lord's Church away from the final production of the Word of God in English, utterly condemned by the Jesuits and still on the Index Expurgatorious of the Inquisition. He is Counter Reformation all the way and this is the last address of mine regarding his continued advance against the English Protestant Reformation that birthed the White Protestant/Baptist Republic of American in 1789.
Lord Bless,
Brother Eric
----- Original Message -----
To: eric@vaticanassassins.org
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 10:35 PM
Subject: Fw: Re: ERIC PHELPS' QUITE JESUITICAL NAMECALLING OF MY BEING A JESUIT FOR EXPOSING FALSE-FLAG, MASONIC MONARCH JAMES VI/I'S JESUIT-DIRECTED, ROMISH AGENDA
Time for a debate on your show it seems?
--- On Fri, 1/7/11, TSwrote:
From: TS
Subject: Re: ERIC PHELPS' QUITE JESUITICAL NAMECALLING OF MY BEING A JESUIT FOR EXPOSING FALSE-FLAG, MASONIC MONARCH JAMES VI/I'S JESUIT-DIRECTED, ROMISH AGENDA
Cc: "Antonio Mundaca", "Barry Chamish" , "Boris Groenmeyer" , "Brent Willis - "B"" , "Chris "Conspiracy Clothes" White" , "Dan Tatman" , "Douglas A. Willinger" , "Freeman Fly (The Freeman Pespective)" , "Greg Farber" , "Greg Szymanski" , "Maxi Aguaisol" , "Mike/ Avenue of Light" , "Oliver Quintessenz" , "Pascal Cormier (Alberto-Chiniquy Legacy)" , "Philip AE Jonkers" , "red ice creations" , "Richard Hershey" , "Leo Zagami"
Date: Friday, January 7, 2011, 1:45 AM
ERIC PHELPS' QUITE JESUITICAL NAMECALLING OF MY BEING A JESUIT FOR EXPOSING FALSE-FLAG, MASONIC MONARCH JAMES VI/I'S JESUIT-DIRECTED, ROMISH AGENDA
Dear Craig
King James was no Protestant (he was a crypto-Catholic & aligned with that Roman carbon-copy Church of England) & has nothing to do with the foundation of Protestant Western Civilization (the usurpation of it by Jesuit-loyal forces - yes!). He was a Papal Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor, overseen (until 1602) by Roman Catholic "General Warden of the Craft" William Schaw - who between them were the first two Jesuit emissaries who sought to infiltrate & control Scottish Freemasonry (not the "Scottish" Rite, which was a product of Jesuit/Stewart intrigues in France via Prussia & onto the USA eventually) - that branch of the Templars who were still then hostile to the Roman/Jesuit nexus. Schaw was seminal in forming James ongoing crypto-Romish mindset - which manifested in his actions & inactions & was thinly covered by his rhetorical, propagandist writings.
Agreed. Schaw was a Masonic Roman Catholic agent of the Jesuits, the Order hoping to replace the deceased, pro-Reformation Queen Elizabeth I with Roman Catholic James Stuart, the son of the traitor, Mary Stuart Queen of Scots. Elizabeth I had once again expelled the Order in 1602, thus they sought legal reentrance into England via their King of Scotland, James VI, waiting in the wings to be "named" King of Great Britain. In the light of Dorothy and Charlton Ogborn's epic masterpiece, This Star of England (1952), it is clear that "William Shakespeare" was in fact Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, Lord Great Chamberlain to the Queen. ("Shakespeare" was not Francis Bacon, as Chris Pinto and others would have us to believe!) Further, the Ogborns prove that Elizabeth I and de Vere (the greatest swordsman in all England, hence "Shake spear") were secretly engaged at which time she conceived a son later known as Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton. Henry, like his father, would be a staunch Protestant, later responsible for successfully opposing the Order's conspiracy within the primarily Roman Catholic House of Lords to give the Virginia Colony to Jesuit-ruled, Roman Catholic Spain. Knowing that the Queen had a lawful heir, the Order, via Robert Cecil (his father, Willilam being also a traitor for Rome, he having sought to marry the Queen to several Roman Catholic monarchs, while he also stole de Vere's 86 landed estates via Edward's forced marriage to Cecil's daughter!), had to make sure Elizabeth would name James as her successor, rather than son Henry. Therefore, while Elizabeth lay dying, she suppossedly whispered into the ear of Robert Cecil the name of the man to take her throne. Robert Cecil declared she designated Presbyterian "James," and the Order was now on track to return England to the Temporal Power of the pope of Rome via this pro-Catholic Presbyterian monarch.
But the risen Son of God would foil this plot, turning the heart of James to true salvation in Christ evidenced by his subsequent deeds during his early kingship. First we must remember that William Schaw had not one day of influence over James the I, Schaw dying in 1602. Thus, the assertion that this Jesuit Coadjutor had any influence over King James I is totally ungrounded. Apparently the risen Son of God killed him, as the Lord was planning to use James for another purpose that would effect the entire world bringing the gospel of Jesus Christ to the ends of the earth. In spite of being trained by the godly Presbyterian George Buchanan, the real negative influences upon James VI were profligate Roman Catholic relatives Esme Stuart and Captain James Stuart who imbibed young James with the Jesuitaical doctrine of absolute power. Thus, James became an enemy of Scottish Presbyterianism and its Kirk. Indeed, according to James A. Wylie, Esme Stuart and the Duke of Guise sought to use James to restore relations with France. Esme, aided by several Jesuits, sought to destroy Presbyterian Protestantism, at the time, the greatest bulwork against divine right absolutism unlimited by the chartered rights of the people and Kirk of Scotland.
As to the claim that James and Schaw were Jesuit coadjutors who sought to infiltrate and control Scottish Freemasonry, this cannot be the case. Since the Jesuit Order is in fact the Order of the New Templars (i.e., the secretly revived Knights Templars only a thousand times worse), it is nonsense to believe the Scottish Templars were hostile to the Black Pope's quest in returning England to papal control. Loyola himself was a Spanish Templar, in league with the Templars of both England and Scotland, evidenced by his secret visit to England to converse with certain Roman Catholic royals about the time he established the Society of Jesus/Horus. Thus, Troy's claim to the contrary is incorrect.
As to James' pro-Catholic mindset, no doubt he was a tool of the Jesuits during his reign as the King of Scotland as covered by my January 7, 2011 Friday broadcast, but he will undergo a change after he becomes King of England/Great Britain that will result in four things:
1. His expulsion of the Jesuit Order from England and Scotland in 1604, thus building upon the Order's Expulsion by Elizabeth I in 1602.
2. His public burning of the theology of Jesuit Francisco Suarez justifing regicide.
3. His authorizing of the translation of a new English Bible in 1604 intended to unite both Protestant Scotland and England.
4. His promise to protect the Protestant faith and to prevent the Temporal Power of the pope from being re-established.
According to James A. Wylie, James now becomes a real enemy of Rome and her Jesuits. On page 526 of volume 3 of The History of Protestantism, Wylie states:
"They began to despair of the King of the Scots---prematurely, we think; but they were naturally more impatient than James, seeing the restoration of their church was with them the first object, whereas with James it was only the second, and the English crown was the first."
The conspirators sought the help of Pope Clement VIII who issued two bulls, one to the Romish priests and the other to the Romish nobility and laity, preventing any monarch from ascending the throne who will not further the power of the papacy. Further, help was sought from King Philp II having lost his Armada in 1588, he merely giving his ascent, but no financial or physical help. Thus the Jesuits, via Jesuit Provincial Henry Garnet, hatched out the plot to blow up Parliament, the king and his family in 1605.
So according to Eric I am a "Jesuit"?! Yes, black is white & white is black with Eric Phelps it seems. Perhaps he should apply to be the Black Pope's official director of the "Anti-Jesuit Movement", as he clearly seems to be displaying the necessary symbolic reversal techniques? Quite frankly - despite my central disagreements with Eric regarding James VI/I, the KJV & George Washington, I still had quite a bit of respect for Eric until reading that pathetic smear attempt. Pretty disappointing if not altogether unsurprising, considering my having rejected a number of Eric's "sacred cows". After discovering & reading the mountain of evidence against these two false heroes I could not go along with the cover stories enveloping them any longer.
I engaged in no pathetic smear attempt, but merely recited eight acts of Troy that benefit the Jesuit Order's Counter Reformation as did Tupper Saussy and his several conclusions in his Rulers of Evil. Troy does not fully address my facts but rather attacks me: "If you cannot refute the facts, then attack the man." Further, I have no sacred cows but am willing to make a change if proved wrong on any point. A mountain of evidence proving James was not saved, not a believer in the true Christ of the Reformation Bible after reading his Works? Was Solomon a pagan since he departed from the Lord and permitted the worship of false gods in Israel? My point concerning James is the same with Solomon, for which reason James is called "our English Solomon." Both had a good beginning in seeking to please the Lord in resisting Rome but later departed from the truth and served the designs of Rome. The same is true with Bible-believing Prince Bismarck; he had a good beginning, winning the Franco-Prussian War in 1870, creating the Protestant Second German Reich in 1871, and suppressing the Jesuits in 1872, but he later revoked the righteous anti-priest Falk Laws, and engaged in Rome's pillaging of "the Scramble for Africa" in 1885.
My advice to all truthseekers looking for the most accurate expose on James VI/I's pro-Romanism & details some (but by no means all) of his several subsequent Jesuit advisors is John Daniel's "Grand Design Exposed"(Pp. 95, 224-245).
This pro-Catholic treason of King James occurs during the latter part of his reign. His refusal to go to war at the outbreak of the First Thirty Years' War (1618-1648) against the Catholic League and to fight on the side of the German Lutheran/Calvinist Protestant Union evidences his loyalty to the papacy. His closing of the Protestant English Parliament in 1621, the reasons Troy cites below being to enforce the anti-Catholic laws and to insist that Prince Charles not marry a Roman Catholic, further evidence James' loyalty to the Jesuit Grand Design for overthrowing Protestant England. His refusal to go to war with Spain, for which Cromwell castigates James in Parliament years later when Oliver was the Protector, further proves James' secret allegiance. And in 1624-25, James provides a warship for France to make war on the Huguenots of France, but the Protestant English sailors refuse to fire on their Protestant Calvinist brethren of Rochelle. James later arranges a marriage for his son to the French Roman Catholic Henrietta Maria, for which anti-Jesuit Japan breaks off all trade relations with Great Britain and his favorite adviser George Calvert who openly declared his Roman Catholicism in 1625, obviously was an agent for the Jesuits in furthering their plan of restoring the pope's Temporal Power. But all of these events transpire during the last 10 years of James' reign, when he was backslidden into the sin of serving Rome. These are not the events that characterized his early years from 1603 to 1615. James had a good beginning and a bad ending.
This book is available at the following links for those wishing to take the blinkers off:
http://www.vaticandesignexposed.com/Part%205.pdf
http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Design-Exposed-John-Daniel/dp/B000QJOUF6 (a bit more expensive at this latter link for reasons unknown).
This excellent & crucial reference work is also most excellent at revealing Order of Cincinnati/Royal Arch Mason George Washington's Romanist leanings & Jesuit connections - as is that other most scholarly Jesuit-exposing history book P.D. Stuart's "Codeword Barbelon" (which Eric ironically sells on his website).
I recommend both books; I know John Daniel personally as he called me and thanked me for publishing VA. Stuart's work is excellent save for his Romaizing of Washington (premised upon a Jesuit lie with no historical data recorded in 18th or 19th century histories) as does Saussy as does Pinto. To outrightly reject these works is to deviate from the maxim necessary for true research: Eat the meat and throw away the bones. There is no irony about it. Washington was no supermason as I prove in my book, that he did not enter a masonic lodge but once or twice during the last 30 years of his life, the Order of Cincinnati in that day being merely a miliary order for former Revolutionary War officers, that Washington openly opposed the Illuminati that he said had not overtaken American Freemasonry. I further have proved that Washington was poisoned by Tobias Lear V, the agent of Thomas Jefferson and enemy of George referred as our American Joshua by the learned and godly President of Yale College, Ezra Stiles.
If I am a Jesuit, then so is John Daniel & PD Stuart - by Eric's standards. Let people think what they will - but let them be given all of the available sides to the story first. Why is Eric's version of all events of history (which includes covering up the Catholic complicity of James VI/I & George Washington - for reasons best known to Eric himself) the only "acceptable" version of events? Can Eric name one Jesuit asset that I have covered up & gatekeepered the activities of? Nope! But I have named two of the big ones & he dislikes this so much that he calls me a "Jesuit". Nice try but really - very weak & pitiful. The "my way or the highway" attitude says more about the critic than the one who is criticised.
Disageed. Daniel and Stuart are deceived; Troy has established a pro-Jesuit pattern of works as did King James during the latter years of his reign. Troy has not answered my eight points leading to the conclusion of him being a Jesuit Coadjutor. Additionally he sows discord between other brethren in my association including Marco and Maxi. Troy has unnecessarily insulted Marco calling him a "Jesuit fag." Further, Troy does not believe any translation of the Bible is the Word of God, he denies the importance of Baptist Captain John Gano baptizing Washington in the Hudson River in 1783, Washington giving his sword to Gano, ad infinitum! Troy has an agenda based upon his several works I have cited. The most pitiful trait paraded by Troy is his lack of a solution to the question of the destruction of White Protestant England. If the AV1611 is a Jesuit fraud; if there is no translation that is the Word of God, then how can England ever be raised to greatness once again, resisting the Temporal Power of the Pope and his EU? Troy has no answers since he disbelievs the Bible to be the infallible Word of God and his misunderstanding of Protestant history. Shall we next expect an attack upon the great Purtian Oliver Cromwell who quoted the AV1611 throughout his letters as proven by Carlisle?
Eric's writings on historical matters & those pertaining to more contemporary goings on have great value & I do not recommend that they are dismissed by any means. Far from it. However, they do not & should not exist in a vacuum & books such as those listed above should be given equal weight & value & concerning the info that they bring forth on James VI/I (in "Grand Design Exposed") & George Washington (in "G.D.E." & "Codeword Barbelon") they should in my humble opinion be given far greater weight, as their conclusions are the same as mine reached independently, their information & mine complementing & fleshing out the reality behind the foundation myths of these two characters.
They have been considered and weighed with the conclusions of other books written closer to the time of the men under examination. My concern is the Jesuit Counter Reformation Grand Design to destroy the reputation of the illustrious George Washington (surrounded with Calvinist preachers during the war), to destroy the names of the real founding fathers of the American Republic (1789-1868), to make King James I a Jesuit Coadjutor from the day he set foot in England, to paint him as an unbeliever inspite of his Works published in 1616, to portray Cromwell as a tyrant and a usuperer, to portray the Gunpowder Plot as a conspiracy of James and Cecil rather than the Jesuit Garnet (as does Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor Webster Tarpley), to utterly ruin the reputation of the moving men of the Reformation (Luther, Calvin, etc.) as well as the Reformation's greatest statesmen, though they weakened during the finishing of their offices, etc. Troy doesn't get it and if he continues will be held accountable for his libel and slander of the men who gave him his freedom of speech by which he expresses his erroneous, intolerant, inconsiderate and unbibilcal views.
A brief summary of my issues with James for those who want a quick overview (utilising selections from posts of mine at the Unhived Mind to minimise needless retyping:
All of James' words are but as the chaff which the wind bloweth away (Psalms 1:4) compared to his actions & non-actions which say it all:
* Replacing the Bible of the Reformation, the Geneva Bible with his authorised official crown/state version.
Interesting. Even the Puritans after time abandoned the Geneva Bible in favor of the AV1611 due to its superior prose and melodic verse necessary for easy memorization---as the 47 translators intended. The Order has never launched an attack against the Geneva Bible, rather against the AV1611 as per their words found in Leone's The Jesuit Conspiracy.
* Forcing Catholic practices upon Protestants: see the Five Articles of Perth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Articles_of_Perth & http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc08/Page_475.html ).
This transpired in 1616 and consumnated in 1621. As previously stated, this transpired during the last half of his kingship when he was in the grips of the Jesuits. This is evidence of his bad ending in contrast to his good beginning.
* Dissolving English Parliament in 1621 after being challenged with a petition to enforce the anti-Catholic laws, go to war against Roman Catholic Spain & for the demand that his son Charles, Prince of Wales to marry a Protestant - rather than his preference, the Roman Catholic Spanish Infanta, Maria: see the Spanish Match (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_VI#Spanish_match )
Again, this was in the latter part of his reign.
As for the Gunpowder Plot:
QUOTE
cui bono?
exclamation
who stands, or stood, to gain (from a crime, and so might have been responsible for it)?
ORIGIN early 17th cent.: Latin, literally ‘to whom (is it) a benefit?’
Hmm, seems to fit the time frame for the words origin just perfectly too. So who did benefit?
King James himself:
Nonsense! This is in complete violation of the historical record given by the foremost Protestant historians of the Reformation (Wylie, D'Aubigne, Mosheim, etc.). Further, it is proven that King Henry IV of France alerted James of the plot, yet another reason the Order killed the Frenchman in 1610. The Jesuits really wanted to blow up Parliament as proven by Wylie, a superior in history to both of us.
His spymaster Sir Robert Cecil (1st earl of Salisbury) successfully managed to extract one of the highest royal subsidies ever from Parliament in the aftermath of the Gunpowder Plot. He also had the perfect cover for implementing pro-Roman actions & avoiding the enforcement of anti-Roman ones, while mouthing anti-Roman rhetoric, thus acting as the perfect tool for the Jesuits this side of the English Channel.
Jesuit expelled in 1604 by James; Jesuit tried for the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 and fully proved guilty in 1606 by Coke; had Westminster been destroyed, the AV1611 would never have been completed---a Jesuit goal; yes, Robert Cecil was a Jesuit Coadjutor as was his father William in the court of Elizabeth, but the Puritans kept both of them from runaway treason for the papacy.
The Jesuits themselves in both the short & the long term:
- Through the High Commssion's ruthless & brutal suppression of the Protestant Reformers (as opposed to the Church of England Conformers) & the Protestant Geneva Bible & via King James carefully minimising repression of Catholics, with the Anti-Catholic laws being a thin "smoke screen".
The king indeed persecuted the Puritans for which reason many left for the new world during his reign. And I will ceed the fact that Bancroft may well have been a Jesuit Coadjutor as was Archbishop Laud during the reign during the reign of Charles I. Clearly Laud was a Jesuit as proven by Augustus Toplady. Agreed, the Commission was terrible, but the Anglicans generally hated the Puritans who were the real targets of the Commission. This is sad and a terrible crime, yet the six separate groups of translators were not corrupted into completing an honest translation. My professor Dr. Rembert Carter, earning his Ph.D from Edinburgh, stated openly in class that the AV1611 was an honest translation. It was open to the public, and the work had to pass by six committes before it was approved. The purported 14 changes of Richard Bancroft did not corrupt the text and I challange Troy to prove otherwise. If you read the Dedication of the Transators, is it all lies or is it the heartfelt truth coming from the writer? Again, it is the AV1611 the Jesuits hate, not the Geneva Bible. Further it was a Puritan that called for a new translation before the king in 1604, Dr. John Rainolds. More can be read on the Commission at http://www.kjv-only.com/rick/influence.html
- The ability to eventually come to fully control the United Kingdom, facilitated by both James' Masonic structure (reworked by James' Grand Warden William Schaw) & the crypto-Catholic Church of England's monopoly on ecclesiastical matters, both entities eventually contributing greatly in different measures to the near-complete legal (compounded by the present financial) destruction of UK sovereignty & its spiritual weakening, leading to its amalgamation into the Jesuit-created Papal European Union.
This is a moot point. The present has nothing to do with this past record. Cromwell broke the chain that James and Charles I welded on the feet of the English Protestants. Charles II and James II restored that tyranny. William III broke that chain again, but the Hanoverian King George III restored that bondage and the English have been kept there since that time. When Britain abandoned the AV1611, the Empire began to be used for the purposes of Rome throughout the mid-nineteenth century. When America abandoned the AV1611 in about 1901 with the New American Standard Bible, the American Empire (1868-present) has been the utter tool of Rome in restoring the Temporal Power around the world aided by the British---thus the Pope's Anglo-American White Power Structure is in full swing. The infant Masonic Structure of James I has undergone changes so as to have it conform to the Jesuit Papacy.
Eric's claim that Bancroft was not on the AKJV translation committee is just plain wrong.
Strangely Eric seems to have completely forgotten this previous piece of correspondence which showed him to be as wrong then as he is now.
I note that Eric wasn't able to reply then - without showing his error, which instead he insists on repeating now. As Eric would say: "The question is why?"
Archbishop Richard Bancroft was not on the Second Cambridge Committee. Both the Translator's Revived by McClure and Final Authority by Dr. William Brady do not list Bancroft on any committee. True, he had oversight, but he did not participate in any of the work save a purported 14 changes to the text after completion---which I would like to see documented. Thus, though a potential Jesuit coadjutor insisting upon the inclusion of the pope's Jewish-fabled Apocropha, God kept him from corrupting the work.
ARCHBISHOP RICHARD BANCROFT, KING JAMES VI/I'S K.J.V. CHIEF OVERSEER/TASK-MASTER, TRANSLATOR & HIGH COMMISSION COURT ENGLISH INQUISITION "RULING SPIRIT"
Dear Eric
You write:
Bancroft was not a translator. Check the list.
&:
Which KJV translators were on the High Commission?
Bancroft was a Translator as well as the chief overseer of the project:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Bible#Committees
Committees
First Westminster Company, translating from Genesis to 2 Kings:
Lancelot Andrewes, John Overall, Hadrian à Saravia, Richard Clarke, John Layfield, Robert Tighe, Francis Burleigh, Geoffrey King, Richard Thomson, William Bedwell;
First Cambridge Company, translated from 1 Chronicles to the Song of Solomon:
Edward Lively, John Richardson, Lawrence Chaderton, Francis Dillingham, Roger Andrewes, Thomas Harrison, Robert Spaulding, Andrew Bing;
First Oxford Company, translated from Isaiah to Malachi:
John Harding, John Rainolds (or Reynolds), Thomas Holland, Richard Kilby, Miles Smith, Richard Brett, Daniel Fairclough, William Thorne;[53]
Second Oxford Company, translated the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, and the Book of Revelation:
Thomas Ravis, George Abbot, Richard Eedes, Giles Tomson, Sir Henry Savile, John Peryn, Ralph Ravens, John Harmar, John Aglionby, Leonard Hutten;
Second Westminster Company, translated the Epistles:
William Barlow, John Spenser, Roger Fenton, Ralph Hutchinson, William Dakins, Michael Rabbet, Thomas Sanderson;
Second Cambridge Company, translated the Apocrypha:
John Duport, William Branthwaite, Jeremiah Radcliffe, Samuel Ward, Andrew Downes, John Bois, Robert Ward, Thomas Bilson, Richard Bancroft.[54]
54. ^ (Bobrick 2001, pp. 223–244)
Bobrick, Benson (2001). Wide as the waters: the story of the English Bible and the revolution it inspired. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0684847477
Clearly an error by Bobrick.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Bible#Considerations_for_a_new_version_of_the_English_Bible
Archbishop Bancroft insisted on having a final say, making fourteen changes, of which one was the term "bishopricke" at Acts 1:20.[52]
^ (Bobrick 2001, p. 257)
No corruption. The Greek word is episkopen meaning overseership/the office of an overseer. Hence bisopricke is fine and better for memorization.
Bobrick, Benson (2001). Wide as the waters: the story of the English Bible and the revolution it inspired. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0684847477
Eric, as per your second question:
Which KJV translators were on the High Commission?
KJV Translators who were also members of the anti-Reformist, pro-Conformist High Commission English Inquisition included:
Richard Bancroft (with the Company who Translated the Apocrypha - let us note of the High Commission's love of the Apocrypha that: "In 1615, Archbishop Abbott, a High Commission Court member, "forbade anyone to issue a Bible without the Apocrypha on pain of one year's imprisonment" (Moorman, Forever Settled, p. 183). This order was likely aimed at the Geneva Bible with its 1599 edition printed without the Apocrypha. Archbishop Laud can be linked to using the power of the High Commission Court to make the KJV the officially approved translation. Conant noted: "So pertinaciously, indeed, did the people cling ot it [the Geneva Bible], and so injurious was its influence to the interests of Episcopacy and of the 'authorized version,' that in the reign of Charles I, Archbishop Laud made the vending, binding, or importation of it [Geneva Bible] a high-commission crime" (English Bible, p. 367).")
Lancelot Andrewes (with the Company who Translated Genesis to 2 Kings)
George Abbot (with the Company who Translated the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles & the Book of Revelation)
More details here:
http://www.kjv-only.com/rick/influence.html
Full list of sources here:
http://z10.invisionfree.com/The_Unhived_Mind_II/index.php?showtopic=33988&st=60#entry3459996
Alexander McClure wrote that Archbishop Bancroft "was the ruling spirit in that infamous tribunal, the High Commission Court, a sort of British Inquisition" ("The Translators Revived; A Biographical Memoir of the Authors of the English Version of the Holy Bible" (1853), p. 217).
In Christ -
Troy
P.S.: Please find below new & more detailed information on the interference of Bancroft on the KJV Translation that I had not read before tonight from a follow-up addendum to a series of pieces from which I have quoted before (& which themselves have more on Bancroft's High Commission Court English Inquisition orchestration, viewable at the following link but not posted in the text below) & which I now post for the edification of all interested parties:
http://www.dtl.org/versions/article/king-james.htm
In his 1671 book, Edward Whiston wrote: “Mention might be made of some unhandsome dealing, not in the translators, but in a great prelate of that time, the chief supervisor of the work, who, as the Reverend Doctor Hill declared in a great and honourable Assembly, would have it speak the prelatical language, and to that end altered it in 14 places” (Life and Death of Henry Jessey, p. 49).
Again, the work of the translators was not affected by Bancroft according to Whiston himself. This is the Providence of God overruling the Jesuit design of Bancroft. 14 places? No problem as to clarification.
Henry Jessey was at Cambridge several years in the 1620’s where he could have had firsthand contact with some of the KJV translators that were there during that time. John Lewis noted that Jessey was "one well skilled in the Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, and Greek tongues" (Complete History, p. 355). The reference work Dictionary of National Biography noted that “his memory for scripture was so minute and accurate that he was termed a living concordance” (Vol. X, p. 808). James Granger referred to Jessey as “an eminent puritan divine” (Biographical History, p. 413). Daniel Neal wrote: “The original languages of the Old And New Testament were as familiar to him [Jessey] as his mother tongue” (History of the Puritans, II, p. 254). John Christian stated that Jessey "was one of the most noted men of his times" (History of the Baptists, I, p. 271). Cathcart’s Baptist Encyclopaedia noted that “his character was marked by unselfishness and an intense love for the truth and its Divine Author” (p. 600). Benjamin Evans stated that “John Bunyan calls him ‘honest and holy Mr. Jessey’” (Early English Baptists, II, p. 150 footnote).
KJV-only advocates may question the validity of Jessey's claim about changes reflecting Episcopal bias being introduced in the 1611, but this claim is likely based on a similar reported claim by someone who would have known firsthand, one of the KJV translators themselves. Gustavus Paine maintained that Miles Smith, final editor of the KJV with Thomas Bilson, “protested that after Bilson and he had finished their editing, Bishop Bancroft made fourteen more changes.” He gave as an example Bancroft's insistence on using "the glorious word bishopric even for Judas in Acts 1:20" (Men Behind the KJV, p. 128). Paine added: “The fact that Smith was the one to protest Bancroft’s amendments suggests that he stood against both Bilson and Bancroft in such matters as the importance of bishoprics” (Ibid.). Edward Whiston asserted that “many of those in King James’ time (had they been as well conscientious in point of fidelity and godliness, as they were furnished with abilities, they) would not have moulded it to their own Episcopal notion rendering episkope, (the office of oversight) by the term Bishoprick Acts 1:20 as they do in 14 places more” (Life, p. 44).
Again, not a problem, no text is corrupted. Excellent quote!
In 1739, John Lewis referred to an essay towards an amendment of this last translation of the Bible “said to have been drawn up” by Henry Jessey (Complete History, p. 355). In his 1845 book, Christopher Anderson also referred to an essay for the amendment of the last translation by Henry Jessey, and Anderson quoted Jessey as writing in that essay that “Dr. Hill declared in open assembly that Bancroft ‘would needs have the version speak prelatic language; and to that end altered it in fourteen several places;’ and that Dr. Miles Smith complained of the Bishops’ alterations” (Annals, II, p. 378). White commented that Jessey “apparently produced a paper arguing the need for a new translation” (Knox, Reformation, p. 141). This 1600’s essay or paper may have been an unprinted manuscript since no printed book written by Jessey with a title like that is known. This essay seems to have been used by Edward Whiston in his 1671 book about the life of Jessey.
As stated, this cannot be proven that Jessey said an entirely new translation was necessary, over a mere 14 changes using synonymous words favoring prelacy and easily clarified? Ridiculous. God was keeping the work pure no matter how hard Bancroft tried to corrupt the work. God's intervention is evidenced by the AV1611 being taken to the ends of the earth for over 300 years and for which the Jesuits convened their Westcott and Hort Revision committee in the 1870s changing the AV1611 in over 30,000 places via a secret Jesuit Greek text that altered the TR in 5,788 places. That was your work of the Jesuits, not the production of the AV1611.
In 1727, Edmund Calamy (1671-1732) noted that Henry Jessey “tells us that Dr. Hill declared in a great assembly, that a great Prelate, viz. Bancroft, who was a supervisor of it, would needs have it speak the prelatical language; and to that end altered it in fourteen several places. And Dr. Smith, who was one of the translators and the writer of the preface, (and who was afterwards Bishop of Glouchester,) complained to a minister of that county, of the Archbishop’s alterations: But says he, he is so potent, that there is no contradicting him” (A Continuation, I, p. 47). In 1808, Walter Wilson affirmed that Miles Smith “complained of the Archbishop’s unwarrantable alterations” (History, I, p. 44 note M). In 1839, Benjamin Hanbury maintained that “Bancroft, the supervisor of James’s translation, altered fourteen places to make it speak the language of prelacy” (Historical Memorials, I, p. 2). In his 1853 book, Alexander McClure also referred to Miles Smith's complaint about the Archbishop's alterations: "It is said that Bancroft altered fourteen places, so as to make them speak in phrase to suit him" (KJV Translators Revived, p. 220). Bobrick confirmed that "Smith afterward complained that Bancroft made fourteen changes on his own account" (Wide as the Waters, p. 248). In 1671, Edward Whiston commented: “Indeed those and such other alterations were not only against the minds of the translators, but of the Bishop of Gloucester [Miles Smith], who was joined with the other as a Supervisor, and complained of it to a friend, a minister of that county, but he is so potent, said he, that there is no contradicting him” (Life, p. 50). Joseph Fletcher noted that “the Bishop of Gloucester excused himself for submitting to this tampering with the sacred text, by saying, ‘but he is so potent, there is no contradicting him’” (History, III, p. 39).
Again, are we to believe these mere 14 changes corrupted the AV1611? Nonsense, once again. They are easily clarified by any student of Koine Greek, as all Bible teachers and Pastors should be for the defense of the AV1611.
Opfell also reported: "In the end Smith complained that Bishop Bancroft had introduced 14 more changes" (KJB Translators, p. 106). Opfell concluded that “as some translators had attested, he [Bancroft] had poked his nose into the text often enough to assure himself that no indignity had been done to bishops” (p. 118). Conant asserted that Bancroft "was publicly charged with having altered the version [KJV] in fourteen places" (The English Bible, p. 440). John McClintock and James Strong also wrote that Bancroft "is said to have made some alterations in the version [KJV]" (Cyclopaedia, I, p. 560). Josiah Penniman observed that “it is said that Bancroft, Bishop of London, insisted on fourteen alterations” (Book about the English Bible, p. 393). Edwin Bissell wrote: “And ‘my Lord of London,‘ who is probably the one referred in the Preface as the chief overseer of the work, was publicly charged at the time, with having altered the version on his own sole authority in fourteen places, the rendering of 1 Peter 2:13, ‘to the king as supreme,‘ being instanced as one of them” (Historic Origin, p. 78). Alister McGrath asserted that Bancroft “had reserved for himself the privilege of making revisions to what hitherto thought of as the final draft” (In the Beginning, p. 178). He also referred to Smith’s complaint “that Bancroft had introduced fourteen changes in the final text without any consultation” (p. 188). In the introductory articles found in Hendrickson’s reprint of the 1611, Alfred Pollard maintained that “another Bishop, Bancroft of London, is said to have insisted on fourteen alterations” (p. 42). Even Laurence Vance, a KJV-only author, acknowledged that Bancroft “is to said to have made fourteen changes” (King James, His Bible, p. 52). Henry Fox asserted: “Again and again were renderings upon which the translators had agreed altered by him [Bancroft] to suit his own views” (On the Revision, p. 7).
I Peter 2:13:
"to the king as supreme" is no corruption. This is exactly what the Greek says. But the word "ktisei" from which is translated "ordinance" could better be understood to be "institution" thereby clearing up the heresy that the Christian is to obey every law/ordinance theat is passed by government. But the word can be translated both ways as per Thayer's Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament, page 363. Again, no corruption.
Along with Henry Jessey and KJV translator Miles Smith, another man made a report about these changes. In his 1648 sermon, Thomas Hill (c1602-1653), a member of the Westminster Assembly, stated: “I have it from certain hands, such as lived in those times, that when the Bible had been translated by the translators appointed, the New Testament was looked over by some of the great Prelates, (men I could name some of their persons) to bring it to speak prelatical language, and they did alter …fourteen places in the New Testament to make them speak the language of the Church of England” (Six Sermons, p. 24; see also Eadie, English Bible, II, p. 272). Thomas Smith noted that Thomas Hill was “much distinguished for his humility and purity of life,” and he described him as “an excellent and useful preacher of great learning and moderation” (Select Memoirs, p. 554). Samuel Clark observed that Hill “was sound in the faith, orthodox in his judgment” (Lives, p. 90). Thomas Hill would have known KJV translator Laurence Chaderton (1536 or 7-1640), who was Master of Emmanuel, when Hill received his B. A. from Emmanuel. Hill could have had contact with other KJV translators in his years at Cambridge. For example, KJV translator Thomas Harrison (1555-1631) was vice-prefect of Trinity College at Cambridge the last twenty years of his life so that Hill could have met him or at least could have had access to his books and papers. KJV translator Samuel Ward was master of Sidney-Sussex College at Cambridge a number of years so that Hill could have met him. KJV translator John Richardson died at Cambridge and was buried in Trinity College chapel. The time before 1638 when two KJV translators were among those editing the KJV for the 1638 Cambridge edition would have been another opportunity for Thomas Hill to have had firsthand contact with translators. In addition, Thomas Hill had access to other primary sources at Cambridge, including the Lambeth Library with the papers of Archbishop Richard Bancroft. Therefore, it can be validly concluded that Thomas Hill had access to enough primary sources to know whether or not the information in his sermon was reliable. Along with Hill’s 1648 sermon, there are state papers from 1652-1653 that cite his sermon and that refer to the testimony of other preachers.
Same conclusion as above.
The Calender of State Papers, Domestic Series, 1652-1653 as edited by Mary Green noted: “Statement that Dr. Hill declared in his sermon, and has since published, that when the Bible had been translated by the translators appointed, the New Testament was looked over by some prelates he could name, to bring it to speak prelatical language, and that he was informed by a great observer, that in 14 places, whereof he instanced five or six, it was corrupted by them. The like testimony was given by some other ancient and godly preachers who lived in those times, and some appearance hereof may yet be seen in a part of that very copy of those translations” (p. 73). John Eadie pointed out that the report of these 14 changes became part of the preamble of a bill in Parliament around 1657 (English Bible, II, p. 272). Eadie cited that preamble as noting that “the like testimony of these prelates” making those changes was “given by some other ancient and godly preachers also, who lived in those times” (Ibid.). Eadie also reported the preamble affirmed that “some appearance hereof may yet be seen in part of that very copy of these translators” (Ibid.). That important evidence asserts that some who examined the copy of the text prepared by the KJV translators for the printers saw evidence of the changes made by a prelate or prelates in that copy before it was lost or destroyed [perhaps around 1660 in the London fire].
The Great London Fire of 1666 totally destroyed the notes of the AV1611 Committees. The Jesuits set this fire as proven by several works in my library and even a cartoon was made with a Jesuit blowing fire on London. No, the Jesuits hated the work of the AV1611 translators for God, using his men, foiled the plot of the Jesuits to corrupt the work. Ironically, every Puritan, Congregationalist, Baptist of the New World had abandoned the Geneva Bible and was using the AV1611 the Order had hoped would establish the primacy of the apostate Anglican Church. Glory to God. It 30,000 AV1611 Bibles that the Continental Congress printed for the American people in 1777. And it was the AV1611 about which President Andrew Jackson stated: "That book is the bedrock upon which this Republic rests." The AV1611 became the foundation of the American Federal Republic which became the greatest gospel-preaching and commercial nation on earth during the 19th century. God has blessed the AV1611 far above the Geneva, his Church preferring it for the last 300 years.
Genesis 50:20
Romans 8:28
- TS
Brother Eric Jon Phelps
On 6 Jan 2011, at 23:24, annunaki@fastmail.fm wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jan 2011 10:43:24 -0500, "Eric Phelps"
said:
Schaw died in 1602 and had nothing to do with the Protestant reign of
King
James.
Bancroft was not on any of the committes of translation. No doubt James
persecuted the Puritans, but that had nothing to do with the translation
of
the text.
More lies from Jesuit Troy Space in his attempt to destroy the foundation
for White Protestant Western Civilization in accord with the Council of
Trent.
Brother Eric
----- Original Message -----
From:
To: "Eric Jon Phelps"
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 7:25 PM
Subject: Fwd: Re: God's Secretaries: Reply to MP #2
On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 22:07:42 +0000, "TS"said:
The KJV was used to promote King James' Jesuit-infiltrated Masonic system
which he & his Roman Catholic Master of Works & General Warden of the
Craft William Schaw took to England when the Sinclairs said "up yours"
when he wanted to be Grand Master of Scotland - which system became the
Grand Lodge of England, later the United Grand Lodge of England, headed
today by the Duke of Kent who is married to a Catholic, who's son got
married as a Catholic in the Vatican in late 2006 & who's younger brother
Mark Mason Grand Master Prince Michael of Kent is married to the most
senior Dame in the British & Irish Delegation of the Pope's
Franco-Neapolitan Constantinian Order.
These guys & all within their lodge system have but one Bible - the King
James appropriately enough. The Jesuit-alligned Masonic British
Empire/Commonwealth hid behind its Christian face & committed bloodshed
everywhere it went. Ah, but God bless King James! Which "God" was "using"
King James? The God of This World - Satan - it would seem. So God does
not coordinate events on Earth, Satan does. God will only intervene if we
ask him too & he deems it appropriate. We have given dominion over the
Earth to Satan when we ate the fruit in the Garden. Sin is selfishness,
selfishness is sin. If a whole bunch of bloodthirsty Rome-alikes prayed
to him to give them the new Bible that "God uses now" (sounds like a
celebrity endorsement), I think that we can safely say that they would
not have got passed the Son to get to him to give them a hearing.
KJV is "super safe"? "Super safe" sounds more like a condom type to me.
Agreed though that the NIV is pretty much the bottom of the barrel.
On 28 Dec 2010, at 21:35, Marco Ponce wrote:
I recall all the verses you hit me with comparing Geneva to kjv and I
must say it is silly be it that kj was a this and that... Geneva was
used by God but the kjv even more. Give praise to God for preserving his
word.
Wanna see Jesuit per-version, look at the niv or the latest satanic
offering the common English bible with 5 Jesuits on staff. Kjv is super
safe and I feel what God is using now to spread his everlasting word.
On Dec 28, 2010, at 1:12 PM, TSwrote:
Tony: How can James VI/I, false God of faux-Reformation idolators
everywhere be considered to be anything other than the whitewashed
propaganda myth handed down to us to gobble up like hungry fools?
James VI/I surrounded himself with Jesuits like William Schaw &
assorted other Catholics, crypto-Catholics & Catholic sympathizers, a
number of which such as Bancroft, Abbott & Andrewes were on James'
Puritan-persecuting High Commission dishing out torture & death to
those who would not conform to James' preferred Roman Catholic
"opposame" Church of England. These were some of the key members of the
King James Bible translation committees. The Puritans were so pleased
that their most hated monarch & his Romish churchmen were offering to
replace the Geneva Bible with the KJV - Everyone knows that! The fact
that so many of them upped & went to America with their Geneva Bibles
was so that they were suffering from temporary insanity - why, who
would want to be far from dear King James??
It is of course sheer lunacy to deduce that he had Roman sympathies
from the fact that he dissolved Parliament in 1621 in response to being
challenged with a petition to enforce the anti-Catholic laws, go to war
against Spain (Roman Catholic Spain that is) & for his son the Prince
if Charles to marry a Protestant instead of the Spanish Infanta Maria.
Those Five Articles of Perth that he tried to ram down Scottish
Christians throats to make them partake in Romish practices - that
must've been a joke! Can't they take a joke those dour Scots?
No Good King James could do no wrong. The Vatican-alligned United Grand
Lodge of England & the Jesuit-created Scottish Rite love him - or his
Bible at least! Even Calvinists love him these days (as bizarre as it
might seem, but hey we are talking about a man whom no right-thinking
person must question the integrity & agenda of). Heck, if if he's good
enough for the Jesuits (despite the weak protestations based on
specious quotes to the contrary) & friends, then let's join in on the
praisefest!
On 28 Dec 2010, at 18:35, Tony Mundaca wrote:
actions speak louder than words.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPHjJ7ahcA8
From: marcoponce@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 05:41:36 -0800
Subject: God's Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible
To: eric@vaticanassassins.org; voxrick@yahoo.com; troy_space@me.com;
annunaki@fastmail.fm; dmaxi_gsl@hotmail.com; chamish@netvision.net.il;
waltpatclifford@gmail.com; gregbeacon@gmail.com;emmandey@hotmail.com;
mrsjanesteele@gmail.com; lennybloom@gmail.com; nowcomex@yahoo.com;
bundesligagun7@sbcglobal.net; fanne_24@hotmail.com;
TonyMundaca@msn.com;thelordsprivateer@yahoo.com;
contacto@lagranconspiracion.com; doug.brehm@yahoo.com;
dattaniamit@gmail.com; akjvtruth@yahoo.com
ATTACHED IS ONE AWESOME EBOOK :)
The King James Bible remains the most influential Bible translation of
all time. Its elegant style and the exalted cadences of its poetry and
prose echo forcefully in Shakespeare, Milton, T.S. Eliot and Reynolds
Price. As travel writer Nicolson points out, however, the path to the
completion of the translation wasn't smooth. When James took the
throne in England in early 1603, he inherited a country embroiled in
theological controversy. Relishing a good theological debate, the king
appointed himself as a mediator between the Anglicans and the
reformist Puritans, siding in the end with the Anglican Church as the
party that posed the least political threat to his authority. As a
result of these debates, James agreed to commission a new translation
of the Bible as an olive branch to the Puritans. Between 1604 and
1611, various committees engaged in making a new translation that
attended more to the original Greek and Hebrew than had earlier
versions. Nicolson deftly chronicles the personalities involved, and
breezily narrates the political and religious struggles of the early
17th century. Yet, the circumstances surrounding this translation are
already well known from two earlier books-Benson Bobrick's Wide as the
Waters and Alister McGrath's In the Beginning-and this treatment adds
little that is new. Although Nicolson succeeds at providing insight
into the diverse personalities involved in making the King James
Bible, Bobrick's remains the most elegant and comprehensive treatment
of the process.
http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Secretaries-Making-James-Bible/dp/0060838736/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1293543175&sr=8-1
Well Writen History
Most KJV books are written from a purely religious perspective. "God's
Secretaries" is written from a primarily secular point of view.
The following is my response to Troy.
Please post.
For me, the topic is now closed. I have answered all of his claims and points, several of his points being very good.
But I still must conclude Troy is a Jesuit Coadjutor repeating mantras of the Order uttered many times before in Rome's attempt to move the Lord's Church away from the final production of the Word of God in English, utterly condemned by the Jesuits and still on the Index Expurgatorious of the Inquisition. He is Counter Reformation all the way and this is the last address of mine regarding his continued advance against the English Protestant Reformation that birthed the White Protestant/Baptist Republic of American in 1789.
Lord Bless,
Brother Eric
----- Original Message -----
To: eric@vaticanassassins.org
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 10:35 PM
Subject: Fw: Re: ERIC PHELPS' QUITE JESUITICAL NAMECALLING OF MY BEING A JESUIT FOR EXPOSING FALSE-FLAG, MASONIC MONARCH JAMES VI/I'S JESUIT-DIRECTED, ROMISH AGENDA
Time for a debate on your show it seems?
--- On Fri, 1/7/11, TS
From: TS
Subject: Re: ERIC PHELPS' QUITE JESUITICAL NAMECALLING OF MY BEING A JESUIT FOR EXPOSING FALSE-FLAG, MASONIC MONARCH JAMES VI/I'S JESUIT-DIRECTED, ROMISH AGENDA
Cc: "Antonio Mundaca"
Date: Friday, January 7, 2011, 1:45 AM
ERIC PHELPS' QUITE JESUITICAL NAMECALLING OF MY BEING A JESUIT FOR EXPOSING FALSE-FLAG, MASONIC MONARCH JAMES VI/I'S JESUIT-DIRECTED, ROMISH AGENDA
Dear Craig
King James was no Protestant (he was a crypto-Catholic & aligned with that Roman carbon-copy Church of England) & has nothing to do with the foundation of Protestant Western Civilization (the usurpation of it by Jesuit-loyal forces - yes!). He was a Papal Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor, overseen (until 1602) by Roman Catholic "General Warden of the Craft" William Schaw - who between them were the first two Jesuit emissaries who sought to infiltrate & control Scottish Freemasonry (not the "Scottish" Rite, which was a product of Jesuit/Stewart intrigues in France via Prussia & onto the USA eventually) - that branch of the Templars who were still then hostile to the Roman/Jesuit nexus. Schaw was seminal in forming James ongoing crypto-Romish mindset - which manifested in his actions & inactions & was thinly covered by his rhetorical, propagandist writings.
Agreed. Schaw was a Masonic Roman Catholic agent of the Jesuits, the Order hoping to replace the deceased, pro-Reformation Queen Elizabeth I with Roman Catholic James Stuart, the son of the traitor, Mary Stuart Queen of Scots. Elizabeth I had once again expelled the Order in 1602, thus they sought legal reentrance into England via their King of Scotland, James VI, waiting in the wings to be "named" King of Great Britain. In the light of Dorothy and Charlton Ogborn's epic masterpiece, This Star of England (1952), it is clear that "William Shakespeare" was in fact Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, Lord Great Chamberlain to the Queen. ("Shakespeare" was not Francis Bacon, as Chris Pinto and others would have us to believe!) Further, the Ogborns prove that Elizabeth I and de Vere (the greatest swordsman in all England, hence "Shake spear") were secretly engaged at which time she conceived a son later known as Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton. Henry, like his father, would be a staunch Protestant, later responsible for successfully opposing the Order's conspiracy within the primarily Roman Catholic House of Lords to give the Virginia Colony to Jesuit-ruled, Roman Catholic Spain. Knowing that the Queen had a lawful heir, the Order, via Robert Cecil (his father, Willilam being also a traitor for Rome, he having sought to marry the Queen to several Roman Catholic monarchs, while he also stole de Vere's 86 landed estates via Edward's forced marriage to Cecil's daughter!), had to make sure Elizabeth would name James as her successor, rather than son Henry. Therefore, while Elizabeth lay dying, she suppossedly whispered into the ear of Robert Cecil the name of the man to take her throne. Robert Cecil declared she designated Presbyterian "James," and the Order was now on track to return England to the Temporal Power of the pope of Rome via this pro-Catholic Presbyterian monarch.
But the risen Son of God would foil this plot, turning the heart of James to true salvation in Christ evidenced by his subsequent deeds during his early kingship. First we must remember that William Schaw had not one day of influence over James the I, Schaw dying in 1602. Thus, the assertion that this Jesuit Coadjutor had any influence over King James I is totally ungrounded. Apparently the risen Son of God killed him, as the Lord was planning to use James for another purpose that would effect the entire world bringing the gospel of Jesus Christ to the ends of the earth. In spite of being trained by the godly Presbyterian George Buchanan, the real negative influences upon James VI were profligate Roman Catholic relatives Esme Stuart and Captain James Stuart who imbibed young James with the Jesuitaical doctrine of absolute power. Thus, James became an enemy of Scottish Presbyterianism and its Kirk. Indeed, according to James A. Wylie, Esme Stuart and the Duke of Guise sought to use James to restore relations with France. Esme, aided by several Jesuits, sought to destroy Presbyterian Protestantism, at the time, the greatest bulwork against divine right absolutism unlimited by the chartered rights of the people and Kirk of Scotland.
As to the claim that James and Schaw were Jesuit coadjutors who sought to infiltrate and control Scottish Freemasonry, this cannot be the case. Since the Jesuit Order is in fact the Order of the New Templars (i.e., the secretly revived Knights Templars only a thousand times worse), it is nonsense to believe the Scottish Templars were hostile to the Black Pope's quest in returning England to papal control. Loyola himself was a Spanish Templar, in league with the Templars of both England and Scotland, evidenced by his secret visit to England to converse with certain Roman Catholic royals about the time he established the Society of Jesus/Horus. Thus, Troy's claim to the contrary is incorrect.
As to James' pro-Catholic mindset, no doubt he was a tool of the Jesuits during his reign as the King of Scotland as covered by my January 7, 2011 Friday broadcast, but he will undergo a change after he becomes King of England/Great Britain that will result in four things:
1. His expulsion of the Jesuit Order from England and Scotland in 1604, thus building upon the Order's Expulsion by Elizabeth I in 1602.
2. His public burning of the theology of Jesuit Francisco Suarez justifing regicide.
3. His authorizing of the translation of a new English Bible in 1604 intended to unite both Protestant Scotland and England.
4. His promise to protect the Protestant faith and to prevent the Temporal Power of the pope from being re-established.
According to James A. Wylie, James now becomes a real enemy of Rome and her Jesuits. On page 526 of volume 3 of The History of Protestantism, Wylie states:
"They began to despair of the King of the Scots---prematurely, we think; but they were naturally more impatient than James, seeing the restoration of their church was with them the first object, whereas with James it was only the second, and the English crown was the first."
The conspirators sought the help of Pope Clement VIII who issued two bulls, one to the Romish priests and the other to the Romish nobility and laity, preventing any monarch from ascending the throne who will not further the power of the papacy. Further, help was sought from King Philp II having lost his Armada in 1588, he merely giving his ascent, but no financial or physical help. Thus the Jesuits, via Jesuit Provincial Henry Garnet, hatched out the plot to blow up Parliament, the king and his family in 1605.
So according to Eric I am a "Jesuit"?! Yes, black is white & white is black with Eric Phelps it seems. Perhaps he should apply to be the Black Pope's official director of the "Anti-Jesuit Movement", as he clearly seems to be displaying the necessary symbolic reversal techniques? Quite frankly - despite my central disagreements with Eric regarding James VI/I, the KJV & George Washington, I still had quite a bit of respect for Eric until reading that pathetic smear attempt. Pretty disappointing if not altogether unsurprising, considering my having rejected a number of Eric's "sacred cows". After discovering & reading the mountain of evidence against these two false heroes I could not go along with the cover stories enveloping them any longer.
I engaged in no pathetic smear attempt, but merely recited eight acts of Troy that benefit the Jesuit Order's Counter Reformation as did Tupper Saussy and his several conclusions in his Rulers of Evil. Troy does not fully address my facts but rather attacks me: "If you cannot refute the facts, then attack the man." Further, I have no sacred cows but am willing to make a change if proved wrong on any point. A mountain of evidence proving James was not saved, not a believer in the true Christ of the Reformation Bible after reading his Works? Was Solomon a pagan since he departed from the Lord and permitted the worship of false gods in Israel? My point concerning James is the same with Solomon, for which reason James is called "our English Solomon." Both had a good beginning in seeking to please the Lord in resisting Rome but later departed from the truth and served the designs of Rome. The same is true with Bible-believing Prince Bismarck; he had a good beginning, winning the Franco-Prussian War in 1870, creating the Protestant Second German Reich in 1871, and suppressing the Jesuits in 1872, but he later revoked the righteous anti-priest Falk Laws, and engaged in Rome's pillaging of "the Scramble for Africa" in 1885.
My advice to all truthseekers looking for the most accurate expose on James VI/I's pro-Romanism & details some (but by no means all) of his several subsequent Jesuit advisors is John Daniel's "Grand Design Exposed"(Pp. 95, 224-245).
This pro-Catholic treason of King James occurs during the latter part of his reign. His refusal to go to war at the outbreak of the First Thirty Years' War (1618-1648) against the Catholic League and to fight on the side of the German Lutheran/Calvinist Protestant Union evidences his loyalty to the papacy. His closing of the Protestant English Parliament in 1621, the reasons Troy cites below being to enforce the anti-Catholic laws and to insist that Prince Charles not marry a Roman Catholic, further evidence James' loyalty to the Jesuit Grand Design for overthrowing Protestant England. His refusal to go to war with Spain, for which Cromwell castigates James in Parliament years later when Oliver was the Protector, further proves James' secret allegiance. And in 1624-25, James provides a warship for France to make war on the Huguenots of France, but the Protestant English sailors refuse to fire on their Protestant Calvinist brethren of Rochelle. James later arranges a marriage for his son to the French Roman Catholic Henrietta Maria, for which anti-Jesuit Japan breaks off all trade relations with Great Britain and his favorite adviser George Calvert who openly declared his Roman Catholicism in 1625, obviously was an agent for the Jesuits in furthering their plan of restoring the pope's Temporal Power. But all of these events transpire during the last 10 years of James' reign, when he was backslidden into the sin of serving Rome. These are not the events that characterized his early years from 1603 to 1615. James had a good beginning and a bad ending.
This book is available at the following links for those wishing to take the blinkers off:
http://www.vaticandesignexposed.com/Part%205.pdf
http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Design-Exposed-John-Daniel/dp/B000QJOUF6 (a bit more expensive at this latter link for reasons unknown).
This excellent & crucial reference work is also most excellent at revealing Order of Cincinnati/Royal Arch Mason George Washington's Romanist leanings & Jesuit connections - as is that other most scholarly Jesuit-exposing history book P.D. Stuart's "Codeword Barbelon" (which Eric ironically sells on his website).
I recommend both books; I know John Daniel personally as he called me and thanked me for publishing VA. Stuart's work is excellent save for his Romaizing of Washington (premised upon a Jesuit lie with no historical data recorded in 18th or 19th century histories) as does Saussy as does Pinto. To outrightly reject these works is to deviate from the maxim necessary for true research: Eat the meat and throw away the bones. There is no irony about it. Washington was no supermason as I prove in my book, that he did not enter a masonic lodge but once or twice during the last 30 years of his life, the Order of Cincinnati in that day being merely a miliary order for former Revolutionary War officers, that Washington openly opposed the Illuminati that he said had not overtaken American Freemasonry. I further have proved that Washington was poisoned by Tobias Lear V, the agent of Thomas Jefferson and enemy of George referred as our American Joshua by the learned and godly President of Yale College, Ezra Stiles.
If I am a Jesuit, then so is John Daniel & PD Stuart - by Eric's standards. Let people think what they will - but let them be given all of the available sides to the story first. Why is Eric's version of all events of history (which includes covering up the Catholic complicity of James VI/I & George Washington - for reasons best known to Eric himself) the only "acceptable" version of events? Can Eric name one Jesuit asset that I have covered up & gatekeepered the activities of? Nope! But I have named two of the big ones & he dislikes this so much that he calls me a "Jesuit". Nice try but really - very weak & pitiful. The "my way or the highway" attitude says more about the critic than the one who is criticised.
Disageed. Daniel and Stuart are deceived; Troy has established a pro-Jesuit pattern of works as did King James during the latter years of his reign. Troy has not answered my eight points leading to the conclusion of him being a Jesuit Coadjutor. Additionally he sows discord between other brethren in my association including Marco and Maxi. Troy has unnecessarily insulted Marco calling him a "Jesuit fag." Further, Troy does not believe any translation of the Bible is the Word of God, he denies the importance of Baptist Captain John Gano baptizing Washington in the Hudson River in 1783, Washington giving his sword to Gano, ad infinitum! Troy has an agenda based upon his several works I have cited. The most pitiful trait paraded by Troy is his lack of a solution to the question of the destruction of White Protestant England. If the AV1611 is a Jesuit fraud; if there is no translation that is the Word of God, then how can England ever be raised to greatness once again, resisting the Temporal Power of the Pope and his EU? Troy has no answers since he disbelievs the Bible to be the infallible Word of God and his misunderstanding of Protestant history. Shall we next expect an attack upon the great Purtian Oliver Cromwell who quoted the AV1611 throughout his letters as proven by Carlisle?
Eric's writings on historical matters & those pertaining to more contemporary goings on have great value & I do not recommend that they are dismissed by any means. Far from it. However, they do not & should not exist in a vacuum & books such as those listed above should be given equal weight & value & concerning the info that they bring forth on James VI/I (in "Grand Design Exposed") & George Washington (in "G.D.E." & "Codeword Barbelon") they should in my humble opinion be given far greater weight, as their conclusions are the same as mine reached independently, their information & mine complementing & fleshing out the reality behind the foundation myths of these two characters.
They have been considered and weighed with the conclusions of other books written closer to the time of the men under examination. My concern is the Jesuit Counter Reformation Grand Design to destroy the reputation of the illustrious George Washington (surrounded with Calvinist preachers during the war), to destroy the names of the real founding fathers of the American Republic (1789-1868), to make King James I a Jesuit Coadjutor from the day he set foot in England, to paint him as an unbeliever inspite of his Works published in 1616, to portray Cromwell as a tyrant and a usuperer, to portray the Gunpowder Plot as a conspiracy of James and Cecil rather than the Jesuit Garnet (as does Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor Webster Tarpley), to utterly ruin the reputation of the moving men of the Reformation (Luther, Calvin, etc.) as well as the Reformation's greatest statesmen, though they weakened during the finishing of their offices, etc. Troy doesn't get it and if he continues will be held accountable for his libel and slander of the men who gave him his freedom of speech by which he expresses his erroneous, intolerant, inconsiderate and unbibilcal views.
A brief summary of my issues with James for those who want a quick overview (utilising selections from posts of mine at the Unhived Mind to minimise needless retyping:
All of James' words are but as the chaff which the wind bloweth away (Psalms 1:4) compared to his actions & non-actions which say it all:
* Replacing the Bible of the Reformation, the Geneva Bible with his authorised official crown/state version.
Interesting. Even the Puritans after time abandoned the Geneva Bible in favor of the AV1611 due to its superior prose and melodic verse necessary for easy memorization---as the 47 translators intended. The Order has never launched an attack against the Geneva Bible, rather against the AV1611 as per their words found in Leone's The Jesuit Conspiracy.
* Forcing Catholic practices upon Protestants: see the Five Articles of Perth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Articles_of_Perth & http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc08/Page_475.html ).
This transpired in 1616 and consumnated in 1621. As previously stated, this transpired during the last half of his kingship when he was in the grips of the Jesuits. This is evidence of his bad ending in contrast to his good beginning.
* Dissolving English Parliament in 1621 after being challenged with a petition to enforce the anti-Catholic laws, go to war against Roman Catholic Spain & for the demand that his son Charles, Prince of Wales to marry a Protestant - rather than his preference, the Roman Catholic Spanish Infanta, Maria: see the Spanish Match (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_VI#Spanish_match )
Again, this was in the latter part of his reign.
As for the Gunpowder Plot:
QUOTE
cui bono?
exclamation
who stands, or stood, to gain (from a crime, and so might have been responsible for it)?
ORIGIN early 17th cent.: Latin, literally ‘to whom (is it) a benefit?’
Hmm, seems to fit the time frame for the words origin just perfectly too. So who did benefit?
King James himself:
Nonsense! This is in complete violation of the historical record given by the foremost Protestant historians of the Reformation (Wylie, D'Aubigne, Mosheim, etc.). Further, it is proven that King Henry IV of France alerted James of the plot, yet another reason the Order killed the Frenchman in 1610. The Jesuits really wanted to blow up Parliament as proven by Wylie, a superior in history to both of us.
His spymaster Sir Robert Cecil (1st earl of Salisbury) successfully managed to extract one of the highest royal subsidies ever from Parliament in the aftermath of the Gunpowder Plot. He also had the perfect cover for implementing pro-Roman actions & avoiding the enforcement of anti-Roman ones, while mouthing anti-Roman rhetoric, thus acting as the perfect tool for the Jesuits this side of the English Channel.
Jesuit expelled in 1604 by James; Jesuit tried for the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 and fully proved guilty in 1606 by Coke; had Westminster been destroyed, the AV1611 would never have been completed---a Jesuit goal; yes, Robert Cecil was a Jesuit Coadjutor as was his father William in the court of Elizabeth, but the Puritans kept both of them from runaway treason for the papacy.
The Jesuits themselves in both the short & the long term:
- Through the High Commssion's ruthless & brutal suppression of the Protestant Reformers (as opposed to the Church of England Conformers) & the Protestant Geneva Bible & via King James carefully minimising repression of Catholics, with the Anti-Catholic laws being a thin "smoke screen".
The king indeed persecuted the Puritans for which reason many left for the new world during his reign. And I will ceed the fact that Bancroft may well have been a Jesuit Coadjutor as was Archbishop Laud during the reign during the reign of Charles I. Clearly Laud was a Jesuit as proven by Augustus Toplady. Agreed, the Commission was terrible, but the Anglicans generally hated the Puritans who were the real targets of the Commission. This is sad and a terrible crime, yet the six separate groups of translators were not corrupted into completing an honest translation. My professor Dr. Rembert Carter, earning his Ph.D from Edinburgh, stated openly in class that the AV1611 was an honest translation. It was open to the public, and the work had to pass by six committes before it was approved. The purported 14 changes of Richard Bancroft did not corrupt the text and I challange Troy to prove otherwise. If you read the Dedication of the Transators, is it all lies or is it the heartfelt truth coming from the writer? Again, it is the AV1611 the Jesuits hate, not the Geneva Bible. Further it was a Puritan that called for a new translation before the king in 1604, Dr. John Rainolds. More can be read on the Commission at http://www.kjv-only.com/rick/influence.html
- The ability to eventually come to fully control the United Kingdom, facilitated by both James' Masonic structure (reworked by James' Grand Warden William Schaw) & the crypto-Catholic Church of England's monopoly on ecclesiastical matters, both entities eventually contributing greatly in different measures to the near-complete legal (compounded by the present financial) destruction of UK sovereignty & its spiritual weakening, leading to its amalgamation into the Jesuit-created Papal European Union.
This is a moot point. The present has nothing to do with this past record. Cromwell broke the chain that James and Charles I welded on the feet of the English Protestants. Charles II and James II restored that tyranny. William III broke that chain again, but the Hanoverian King George III restored that bondage and the English have been kept there since that time. When Britain abandoned the AV1611, the Empire began to be used for the purposes of Rome throughout the mid-nineteenth century. When America abandoned the AV1611 in about 1901 with the New American Standard Bible, the American Empire (1868-present) has been the utter tool of Rome in restoring the Temporal Power around the world aided by the British---thus the Pope's Anglo-American White Power Structure is in full swing. The infant Masonic Structure of James I has undergone changes so as to have it conform to the Jesuit Papacy.
Eric's claim that Bancroft was not on the AKJV translation committee is just plain wrong.
Strangely Eric seems to have completely forgotten this previous piece of correspondence which showed him to be as wrong then as he is now.
I note that Eric wasn't able to reply then - without showing his error, which instead he insists on repeating now. As Eric would say: "The question is why?"
Archbishop Richard Bancroft was not on the Second Cambridge Committee. Both the Translator's Revived by McClure and Final Authority by Dr. William Brady do not list Bancroft on any committee. True, he had oversight, but he did not participate in any of the work save a purported 14 changes to the text after completion---which I would like to see documented. Thus, though a potential Jesuit coadjutor insisting upon the inclusion of the pope's Jewish-fabled Apocropha, God kept him from corrupting the work.
ARCHBISHOP RICHARD BANCROFT, KING JAMES VI/I'S K.J.V. CHIEF OVERSEER/TASK-MASTER, TRANSLATOR & HIGH COMMISSION COURT ENGLISH INQUISITION "RULING SPIRIT"
Dear Eric
You write:
Bancroft was not a translator. Check the list.
&:
Which KJV translators were on the High Commission?
Bancroft was a Translator as well as the chief overseer of the project:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Bible#Committees
Committees
First Westminster Company, translating from Genesis to 2 Kings:
Lancelot Andrewes, John Overall, Hadrian à Saravia, Richard Clarke, John Layfield, Robert Tighe, Francis Burleigh, Geoffrey King, Richard Thomson, William Bedwell;
First Cambridge Company, translated from 1 Chronicles to the Song of Solomon:
Edward Lively, John Richardson, Lawrence Chaderton, Francis Dillingham, Roger Andrewes, Thomas Harrison, Robert Spaulding, Andrew Bing;
First Oxford Company, translated from Isaiah to Malachi:
John Harding, John Rainolds (or Reynolds), Thomas Holland, Richard Kilby, Miles Smith, Richard Brett, Daniel Fairclough, William Thorne;[53]
Second Oxford Company, translated the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, and the Book of Revelation:
Thomas Ravis, George Abbot, Richard Eedes, Giles Tomson, Sir Henry Savile, John Peryn, Ralph Ravens, John Harmar, John Aglionby, Leonard Hutten;
Second Westminster Company, translated the Epistles:
William Barlow, John Spenser, Roger Fenton, Ralph Hutchinson, William Dakins, Michael Rabbet, Thomas Sanderson;
Second Cambridge Company, translated the Apocrypha:
John Duport, William Branthwaite, Jeremiah Radcliffe, Samuel Ward, Andrew Downes, John Bois, Robert Ward, Thomas Bilson, Richard Bancroft.[54]
54. ^ (Bobrick 2001, pp. 223–244)
Bobrick, Benson (2001). Wide as the waters: the story of the English Bible and the revolution it inspired. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0684847477
Clearly an error by Bobrick.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Bible#Considerations_for_a_new_version_of_the_English_Bible
Archbishop Bancroft insisted on having a final say, making fourteen changes, of which one was the term "bishopricke" at Acts 1:20.[52]
^ (Bobrick 2001, p. 257)
No corruption. The Greek word is episkopen meaning overseership/the office of an overseer. Hence bisopricke is fine and better for memorization.
Bobrick, Benson (2001). Wide as the waters: the story of the English Bible and the revolution it inspired. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0684847477
Eric, as per your second question:
Which KJV translators were on the High Commission?
KJV Translators who were also members of the anti-Reformist, pro-Conformist High Commission English Inquisition included:
Richard Bancroft (with the Company who Translated the Apocrypha - let us note of the High Commission's love of the Apocrypha that: "In 1615, Archbishop Abbott, a High Commission Court member, "forbade anyone to issue a Bible without the Apocrypha on pain of one year's imprisonment" (Moorman, Forever Settled, p. 183). This order was likely aimed at the Geneva Bible with its 1599 edition printed without the Apocrypha. Archbishop Laud can be linked to using the power of the High Commission Court to make the KJV the officially approved translation. Conant noted: "So pertinaciously, indeed, did the people cling ot it [the Geneva Bible], and so injurious was its influence to the interests of Episcopacy and of the 'authorized version,' that in the reign of Charles I, Archbishop Laud made the vending, binding, or importation of it [Geneva Bible] a high-commission crime" (English Bible, p. 367).")
Lancelot Andrewes (with the Company who Translated Genesis to 2 Kings)
George Abbot (with the Company who Translated the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles & the Book of Revelation)
More details here:
http://www.kjv-only.com/rick/influence.html
Full list of sources here:
http://z10.invisionfree.com/The_Unhived_Mind_II/index.php?showtopic=33988&st=60#entry3459996
Alexander McClure wrote that Archbishop Bancroft "was the ruling spirit in that infamous tribunal, the High Commission Court, a sort of British Inquisition" ("The Translators Revived; A Biographical Memoir of the Authors of the English Version of the Holy Bible" (1853), p. 217).
In Christ -
Troy
P.S.: Please find below new & more detailed information on the interference of Bancroft on the KJV Translation that I had not read before tonight from a follow-up addendum to a series of pieces from which I have quoted before (& which themselves have more on Bancroft's High Commission Court English Inquisition orchestration, viewable at the following link but not posted in the text below) & which I now post for the edification of all interested parties:
http://www.dtl.org/versions/article/king-james.htm
In his 1671 book, Edward Whiston wrote: “Mention might be made of some unhandsome dealing, not in the translators, but in a great prelate of that time, the chief supervisor of the work, who, as the Reverend Doctor Hill declared in a great and honourable Assembly, would have it speak the prelatical language, and to that end altered it in 14 places” (Life and Death of Henry Jessey, p. 49).
Again, the work of the translators was not affected by Bancroft according to Whiston himself. This is the Providence of God overruling the Jesuit design of Bancroft. 14 places? No problem as to clarification.
Henry Jessey was at Cambridge several years in the 1620’s where he could have had firsthand contact with some of the KJV translators that were there during that time. John Lewis noted that Jessey was "one well skilled in the Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, and Greek tongues" (Complete History, p. 355). The reference work Dictionary of National Biography noted that “his memory for scripture was so minute and accurate that he was termed a living concordance” (Vol. X, p. 808). James Granger referred to Jessey as “an eminent puritan divine” (Biographical History, p. 413). Daniel Neal wrote: “The original languages of the Old And New Testament were as familiar to him [Jessey] as his mother tongue” (History of the Puritans, II, p. 254). John Christian stated that Jessey "was one of the most noted men of his times" (History of the Baptists, I, p. 271). Cathcart’s Baptist Encyclopaedia noted that “his character was marked by unselfishness and an intense love for the truth and its Divine Author” (p. 600). Benjamin Evans stated that “John Bunyan calls him ‘honest and holy Mr. Jessey’” (Early English Baptists, II, p. 150 footnote).
KJV-only advocates may question the validity of Jessey's claim about changes reflecting Episcopal bias being introduced in the 1611, but this claim is likely based on a similar reported claim by someone who would have known firsthand, one of the KJV translators themselves. Gustavus Paine maintained that Miles Smith, final editor of the KJV with Thomas Bilson, “protested that after Bilson and he had finished their editing, Bishop Bancroft made fourteen more changes.” He gave as an example Bancroft's insistence on using "the glorious word bishopric even for Judas in Acts 1:20" (Men Behind the KJV, p. 128). Paine added: “The fact that Smith was the one to protest Bancroft’s amendments suggests that he stood against both Bilson and Bancroft in such matters as the importance of bishoprics” (Ibid.). Edward Whiston asserted that “many of those in King James’ time (had they been as well conscientious in point of fidelity and godliness, as they were furnished with abilities, they) would not have moulded it to their own Episcopal notion rendering episkope, (the office of oversight) by the term Bishoprick Acts 1:20 as they do in 14 places more” (Life, p. 44).
Again, not a problem, no text is corrupted. Excellent quote!
In 1739, John Lewis referred to an essay towards an amendment of this last translation of the Bible “said to have been drawn up” by Henry Jessey (Complete History, p. 355). In his 1845 book, Christopher Anderson also referred to an essay for the amendment of the last translation by Henry Jessey, and Anderson quoted Jessey as writing in that essay that “Dr. Hill declared in open assembly that Bancroft ‘would needs have the version speak prelatic language; and to that end altered it in fourteen several places;’ and that Dr. Miles Smith complained of the Bishops’ alterations” (Annals, II, p. 378). White commented that Jessey “apparently produced a paper arguing the need for a new translation” (Knox, Reformation, p. 141). This 1600’s essay or paper may have been an unprinted manuscript since no printed book written by Jessey with a title like that is known. This essay seems to have been used by Edward Whiston in his 1671 book about the life of Jessey.
As stated, this cannot be proven that Jessey said an entirely new translation was necessary, over a mere 14 changes using synonymous words favoring prelacy and easily clarified? Ridiculous. God was keeping the work pure no matter how hard Bancroft tried to corrupt the work. God's intervention is evidenced by the AV1611 being taken to the ends of the earth for over 300 years and for which the Jesuits convened their Westcott and Hort Revision committee in the 1870s changing the AV1611 in over 30,000 places via a secret Jesuit Greek text that altered the TR in 5,788 places. That was your work of the Jesuits, not the production of the AV1611.
In 1727, Edmund Calamy (1671-1732) noted that Henry Jessey “tells us that Dr. Hill declared in a great assembly, that a great Prelate, viz. Bancroft, who was a supervisor of it, would needs have it speak the prelatical language; and to that end altered it in fourteen several places. And Dr. Smith, who was one of the translators and the writer of the preface, (and who was afterwards Bishop of Glouchester,) complained to a minister of that county, of the Archbishop’s alterations: But says he, he is so potent, that there is no contradicting him” (A Continuation, I, p. 47). In 1808, Walter Wilson affirmed that Miles Smith “complained of the Archbishop’s unwarrantable alterations” (History, I, p. 44 note M). In 1839, Benjamin Hanbury maintained that “Bancroft, the supervisor of James’s translation, altered fourteen places to make it speak the language of prelacy” (Historical Memorials, I, p. 2). In his 1853 book, Alexander McClure also referred to Miles Smith's complaint about the Archbishop's alterations: "It is said that Bancroft altered fourteen places, so as to make them speak in phrase to suit him" (KJV Translators Revived, p. 220). Bobrick confirmed that "Smith afterward complained that Bancroft made fourteen changes on his own account" (Wide as the Waters, p. 248). In 1671, Edward Whiston commented: “Indeed those and such other alterations were not only against the minds of the translators, but of the Bishop of Gloucester [Miles Smith], who was joined with the other as a Supervisor, and complained of it to a friend, a minister of that county, but he is so potent, said he, that there is no contradicting him” (Life, p. 50). Joseph Fletcher noted that “the Bishop of Gloucester excused himself for submitting to this tampering with the sacred text, by saying, ‘but he is so potent, there is no contradicting him’” (History, III, p. 39).
Again, are we to believe these mere 14 changes corrupted the AV1611? Nonsense, once again. They are easily clarified by any student of Koine Greek, as all Bible teachers and Pastors should be for the defense of the AV1611.
Opfell also reported: "In the end Smith complained that Bishop Bancroft had introduced 14 more changes" (KJB Translators, p. 106). Opfell concluded that “as some translators had attested, he [Bancroft] had poked his nose into the text often enough to assure himself that no indignity had been done to bishops” (p. 118). Conant asserted that Bancroft "was publicly charged with having altered the version [KJV] in fourteen places" (The English Bible, p. 440). John McClintock and James Strong also wrote that Bancroft "is said to have made some alterations in the version [KJV]" (Cyclopaedia, I, p. 560). Josiah Penniman observed that “it is said that Bancroft, Bishop of London, insisted on fourteen alterations” (Book about the English Bible, p. 393). Edwin Bissell wrote: “And ‘my Lord of London,‘ who is probably the one referred in the Preface as the chief overseer of the work, was publicly charged at the time, with having altered the version on his own sole authority in fourteen places, the rendering of 1 Peter 2:13, ‘to the king as supreme,‘ being instanced as one of them” (Historic Origin, p. 78). Alister McGrath asserted that Bancroft “had reserved for himself the privilege of making revisions to what hitherto thought of as the final draft” (In the Beginning, p. 178). He also referred to Smith’s complaint “that Bancroft had introduced fourteen changes in the final text without any consultation” (p. 188). In the introductory articles found in Hendrickson’s reprint of the 1611, Alfred Pollard maintained that “another Bishop, Bancroft of London, is said to have insisted on fourteen alterations” (p. 42). Even Laurence Vance, a KJV-only author, acknowledged that Bancroft “is to said to have made fourteen changes” (King James, His Bible, p. 52). Henry Fox asserted: “Again and again were renderings upon which the translators had agreed altered by him [Bancroft] to suit his own views” (On the Revision, p. 7).
I Peter 2:13:
"to the king as supreme" is no corruption. This is exactly what the Greek says. But the word "ktisei" from which is translated "ordinance" could better be understood to be "institution" thereby clearing up the heresy that the Christian is to obey every law/ordinance theat is passed by government. But the word can be translated both ways as per Thayer's Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament, page 363. Again, no corruption.
Along with Henry Jessey and KJV translator Miles Smith, another man made a report about these changes. In his 1648 sermon, Thomas Hill (c1602-1653), a member of the Westminster Assembly, stated: “I have it from certain hands, such as lived in those times, that when the Bible had been translated by the translators appointed, the New Testament was looked over by some of the great Prelates, (men I could name some of their persons) to bring it to speak prelatical language, and they did alter …fourteen places in the New Testament to make them speak the language of the Church of England” (Six Sermons, p. 24; see also Eadie, English Bible, II, p. 272). Thomas Smith noted that Thomas Hill was “much distinguished for his humility and purity of life,” and he described him as “an excellent and useful preacher of great learning and moderation” (Select Memoirs, p. 554). Samuel Clark observed that Hill “was sound in the faith, orthodox in his judgment” (Lives, p. 90). Thomas Hill would have known KJV translator Laurence Chaderton (1536 or 7-1640), who was Master of Emmanuel, when Hill received his B. A. from Emmanuel. Hill could have had contact with other KJV translators in his years at Cambridge. For example, KJV translator Thomas Harrison (1555-1631) was vice-prefect of Trinity College at Cambridge the last twenty years of his life so that Hill could have met him or at least could have had access to his books and papers. KJV translator Samuel Ward was master of Sidney-Sussex College at Cambridge a number of years so that Hill could have met him. KJV translator John Richardson died at Cambridge and was buried in Trinity College chapel. The time before 1638 when two KJV translators were among those editing the KJV for the 1638 Cambridge edition would have been another opportunity for Thomas Hill to have had firsthand contact with translators. In addition, Thomas Hill had access to other primary sources at Cambridge, including the Lambeth Library with the papers of Archbishop Richard Bancroft. Therefore, it can be validly concluded that Thomas Hill had access to enough primary sources to know whether or not the information in his sermon was reliable. Along with Hill’s 1648 sermon, there are state papers from 1652-1653 that cite his sermon and that refer to the testimony of other preachers.
Same conclusion as above.
The Calender of State Papers, Domestic Series, 1652-1653 as edited by Mary Green noted: “Statement that Dr. Hill declared in his sermon, and has since published, that when the Bible had been translated by the translators appointed, the New Testament was looked over by some prelates he could name, to bring it to speak prelatical language, and that he was informed by a great observer, that in 14 places, whereof he instanced five or six, it was corrupted by them. The like testimony was given by some other ancient and godly preachers who lived in those times, and some appearance hereof may yet be seen in a part of that very copy of those translations” (p. 73). John Eadie pointed out that the report of these 14 changes became part of the preamble of a bill in Parliament around 1657 (English Bible, II, p. 272). Eadie cited that preamble as noting that “the like testimony of these prelates” making those changes was “given by some other ancient and godly preachers also, who lived in those times” (Ibid.). Eadie also reported the preamble affirmed that “some appearance hereof may yet be seen in part of that very copy of these translators” (Ibid.). That important evidence asserts that some who examined the copy of the text prepared by the KJV translators for the printers saw evidence of the changes made by a prelate or prelates in that copy before it was lost or destroyed [perhaps around 1660 in the London fire].
The Great London Fire of 1666 totally destroyed the notes of the AV1611 Committees. The Jesuits set this fire as proven by several works in my library and even a cartoon was made with a Jesuit blowing fire on London. No, the Jesuits hated the work of the AV1611 translators for God, using his men, foiled the plot of the Jesuits to corrupt the work. Ironically, every Puritan, Congregationalist, Baptist of the New World had abandoned the Geneva Bible and was using the AV1611 the Order had hoped would establish the primacy of the apostate Anglican Church. Glory to God. It 30,000 AV1611 Bibles that the Continental Congress printed for the American people in 1777. And it was the AV1611 about which President Andrew Jackson stated: "That book is the bedrock upon which this Republic rests." The AV1611 became the foundation of the American Federal Republic which became the greatest gospel-preaching and commercial nation on earth during the 19th century. God has blessed the AV1611 far above the Geneva, his Church preferring it for the last 300 years.
Genesis 50:20
Romans 8:28
- TS
Brother Eric Jon Phelps
On 6 Jan 2011, at 23:24, annunaki@fastmail.fm wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jan 2011 10:43:24 -0500, "Eric Phelps"
Schaw died in 1602 and had nothing to do with the Protestant reign of
King
James.
Bancroft was not on any of the committes of translation. No doubt James
persecuted the Puritans, but that had nothing to do with the translation
of
the text.
More lies from Jesuit Troy Space in his attempt to destroy the foundation
for White Protestant Western Civilization in accord with the Council of
Trent.
Brother Eric
----- Original Message -----
From:
To: "Eric Jon Phelps"
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 7:25 PM
Subject: Fwd: Re: God's Secretaries: Reply to MP #2
On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 22:07:42 +0000, "TS"
The KJV was used to promote King James' Jesuit-infiltrated Masonic system
which he & his Roman Catholic Master of Works & General Warden of the
Craft William Schaw took to England when the Sinclairs said "up yours"
when he wanted to be Grand Master of Scotland - which system became the
Grand Lodge of England, later the United Grand Lodge of England, headed
today by the Duke of Kent who is married to a Catholic, who's son got
married as a Catholic in the Vatican in late 2006 & who's younger brother
Mark Mason Grand Master Prince Michael of Kent is married to the most
senior Dame in the British & Irish Delegation of the Pope's
Franco-Neapolitan Constantinian Order.
These guys & all within their lodge system have but one Bible - the King
James appropriately enough. The Jesuit-alligned Masonic British
Empire/Commonwealth hid behind its Christian face & committed bloodshed
everywhere it went. Ah, but God bless King James! Which "God" was "using"
King James? The God of This World - Satan - it would seem. So God does
not coordinate events on Earth, Satan does. God will only intervene if we
ask him too & he deems it appropriate. We have given dominion over the
Earth to Satan when we ate the fruit in the Garden. Sin is selfishness,
selfishness is sin. If a whole bunch of bloodthirsty Rome-alikes prayed
to him to give them the new Bible that "God uses now" (sounds like a
celebrity endorsement), I think that we can safely say that they would
not have got passed the Son to get to him to give them a hearing.
KJV is "super safe"? "Super safe" sounds more like a condom type to me.
Agreed though that the NIV is pretty much the bottom of the barrel.
On 28 Dec 2010, at 21:35, Marco Ponce wrote:
I recall all the verses you hit me with comparing Geneva to kjv and I
must say it is silly be it that kj was a this and that... Geneva was
used by God but the kjv even more. Give praise to God for preserving his
word.
Wanna see Jesuit per-version, look at the niv or the latest satanic
offering the common English bible with 5 Jesuits on staff. Kjv is super
safe and I feel what God is using now to spread his everlasting word.
On Dec 28, 2010, at 1:12 PM, TS
Tony: How can James VI/I, false God of faux-Reformation idolators
everywhere be considered to be anything other than the whitewashed
propaganda myth handed down to us to gobble up like hungry fools?
James VI/I surrounded himself with Jesuits like William Schaw &
assorted other Catholics, crypto-Catholics & Catholic sympathizers, a
number of which such as Bancroft, Abbott & Andrewes were on James'
Puritan-persecuting High Commission dishing out torture & death to
those who would not conform to James' preferred Roman Catholic
"opposame" Church of England. These were some of the key members of the
King James Bible translation committees. The Puritans were so pleased
that their most hated monarch & his Romish churchmen were offering to
replace the Geneva Bible with the KJV - Everyone knows that! The fact
that so many of them upped & went to America with their Geneva Bibles
was so that they were suffering from temporary insanity - why, who
would want to be far from dear King James??
It is of course sheer lunacy to deduce that he had Roman sympathies
from the fact that he dissolved Parliament in 1621 in response to being
challenged with a petition to enforce the anti-Catholic laws, go to war
against Spain (Roman Catholic Spain that is) & for his son the Prince
if Charles to marry a Protestant instead of the Spanish Infanta Maria.
Those Five Articles of Perth that he tried to ram down Scottish
Christians throats to make them partake in Romish practices - that
must've been a joke! Can't they take a joke those dour Scots?
No Good King James could do no wrong. The Vatican-alligned United Grand
Lodge of England & the Jesuit-created Scottish Rite love him - or his
Bible at least! Even Calvinists love him these days (as bizarre as it
might seem, but hey we are talking about a man whom no right-thinking
person must question the integrity & agenda of). Heck, if if he's good
enough for the Jesuits (despite the weak protestations based on
specious quotes to the contrary) & friends, then let's join in on the
praisefest!
On 28 Dec 2010, at 18:35, Tony Mundaca wrote:
actions speak louder than words.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPHjJ7ahcA8
From: marcoponce@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 05:41:36 -0800
Subject: God's Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible
To: eric@vaticanassassins.org; voxrick@yahoo.com; troy_space@me.com;
annunaki@fastmail.fm; dmaxi_gsl@hotmail.com; chamish@netvision.net.il;
waltpatclifford@gmail.com; gregbeacon@gmail.com;emmandey@hotmail.com;
mrsjanesteele@gmail.com; lennybloom@gmail.com; nowcomex@yahoo.com;
bundesligagun7@sbcglobal.net; fanne_24@hotmail.com;
TonyMundaca@msn.com;thelordsprivateer@yahoo.com;
contacto@lagranconspiracion.com; doug.brehm@yahoo.com;
dattaniamit@gmail.com; akjvtruth@yahoo.com
ATTACHED IS ONE AWESOME EBOOK :)
The King James Bible remains the most influential Bible translation of
all time. Its elegant style and the exalted cadences of its poetry and
prose echo forcefully in Shakespeare, Milton, T.S. Eliot and Reynolds
Price. As travel writer Nicolson points out, however, the path to the
completion of the translation wasn't smooth. When James took the
throne in England in early 1603, he inherited a country embroiled in
theological controversy. Relishing a good theological debate, the king
appointed himself as a mediator between the Anglicans and the
reformist Puritans, siding in the end with the Anglican Church as the
party that posed the least political threat to his authority. As a
result of these debates, James agreed to commission a new translation
of the Bible as an olive branch to the Puritans. Between 1604 and
1611, various committees engaged in making a new translation that
attended more to the original Greek and Hebrew than had earlier
versions. Nicolson deftly chronicles the personalities involved, and
breezily narrates the political and religious struggles of the early
17th century. Yet, the circumstances surrounding this translation are
already well known from two earlier books-Benson Bobrick's Wide as the
Waters and Alister McGrath's In the Beginning-and this treatment adds
little that is new. Although Nicolson succeeds at providing insight
into the diverse personalities involved in making the King James
Bible, Bobrick's remains the most elegant and comprehensive treatment
of the process.
http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Secretaries-Making-James-Bible/dp/0060838736/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1293543175&sr=8-1
Well Writen History
Most KJV books are written from a purely religious perspective. "God's
Secretaries" is written from a primarily secular point of view.
No comments:
Post a Comment