A Defense of King James
By Tim and Barb Aho

A Defense of King James VI & I

Recently a Rapture Watch report was circulated which contained many false accBliptions against King James I of England who authorized the translation of the 1611 Authorised Version. There was so much misinformation in this article that a response is in order. The particular slant of the Rapture Watch report was that King James I was a proponent of British-blipsm who contolled the translation of the 1611 Authorised Version in order to promote the religious superstition and political agenda of British-blip.

To understand the full import of this accBliption, it is necessary to know that the British-blip doctrine is based on the following unbiblical and superstitious beliefs: [1] The ten lost tribes of blip migrated to the British Isles following the Assyrian Captivity. [2] After JerBliplem fell to Nebuchadnezzar, Tamar, the daughter of King Zedekiah, was removed to Ireland (via Egypt and Spain) by the prophet Jeremiah, who also brought the anointed Stone of the Covenant, known also as Lia Fail or Stone of Destiny, upon which the monarchs of England and Scotland are crowned. [3] The physical descendants of Jesus Christ who married Mary Magdalene migrated to Great Britain and the royalty of that country are of this divine lineage.    

The author of the Rapture Watch report begins with the naive assumption that all modern translations are equal. Jamma further claims that the KJV translators took great liberties in translating and would have encouraged comparison among the various modern translations. Also the report contends that the translators of the 1611 Authorised Version worked under the dark shadow of a wicked king who wished to impose his own pagan beliefs on the translation he authorized. He concludes that King James was an member of the Celtic [Druid] religion so prevalent in the British Isles. The knowledgeable reader is left to draw the obvious conclusion that King James was therefore a believer in the pagan practices of Druidism, which even included human sacrifice.

At various points, Jamma reassures the reader that, despite the evil king's oversight and domination of the translators, the King James Version is an excellent Bible translation. This non sequitor is typical of the faulty logic found in the Rapture Watch article. The author also leads the reader to believe that, since all translations have errors, there is little difference among them. As well, he presents as facts a patchwork of undocumented theories and circumstantial evidence, rather than primary source evidence, in order to discredit King James VI & I and, by extension, the translation of the Bible he authorized.

In jurisprudence, the admissibility of evidence is governed by various rules. Rules of evidence are fixed by determining prima facie evidence, corroborative evidence and forensic evidence as opposed to evidence which is merely circumstantial.  Jurors may not arrive at a decision of guilt on mere circumstantial evidence but only upon prima facie [of a fact] evidence -- which in Law means evidence that is sufficient to establish a given fact unless it is rebutted -- along with corroborative [supportive] and forensic [laboratory] evidence. 

Applying this rule to the judgment in which Christians must engage their critical faculties concerning the genuineness of ministers in the Church, we believe that it is equally unconscionable for believers to dismiss prima facie evidence [that which is sufficient to establish a fact] when presented with mere circumstantial evidence to the contrary. Even Scripture requires that an accBliption may not be received against an elder of the Church, except in the presence of two or three witnesses who are able to establish the facts. [I Tim. 5:19] To refute the false witness of the Rapture Watch report, and hopefully to some extent vindicate a Christian king whose good name has been maligned by similar false reports, we will consider prima facie evidence regarding the person and works of King James, and also certain revisers of the English Bible he authorized. 

In preparing this response, I consulted the webmaster of His Majestie King James VI & I website, which is an extensive resource for Christians to study the writings and history of King James and his period, as well as obtain information on the translation of the 1611 Authorised Version. In the response which follows, Mrs. Tracy's comments are enclosed with **double asterisks**. To distinguish among the various other statements, the Rapture Watch report (which is printed in full) is highlighted in bold black, excerpts from the A.V. Translators' Preface are in black and the Watch Unto Prayer commentary in blue print. The full text of the Translators' Preface can be read at: http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/pref1611.htm

---

PART ONE:

It is not uncommon for us to be asked about Bible translations and why it is that we do not quote solely from the original version of the King James Bible.  The following are some points why we defend looking up original words of Scripture over giving a blanket endorsement of any translation.  The King James Version is superb--but not inerrant.  Our stand is supported by the original translators as can be shown by the following references.

For a little help in understanding, V’s are U’s, U’s are V’s, I’ s are J’s and F’s are S’s etc.

1) The translators made it clear that translations could always use a reviewing and that they are still just translations.

“And to the same effect say wee, that we are so farre off from condemning any of their labours that traueiled before vs in this kinde. . .we acknowledge them to haue beene raised vp of God, for the building and furnishing of his Church. . .Yet for all that, as nothing is betatter and perfited at the same time, and the later thoughts are thought to be the wiser: so, if we build vpon their foundations that went before vs, and being holpen by their labours, doe endeuour to make that better which they left so good; no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike vs; they, we perswade our selues, if they were aliue, would thank vs. . .whom we speak before, translated the Bible as carefully, and as skilfully as he could; and yet he thought good to goe ouer it againe, and then it got the credit with the Iewes. . .

How many books of profane learning haue bene gone ouer againe and againe, by the same translators, by others?. . .And this is the word of God, which we translate. . .if a toy of glasse be of that rekoning with vs, how ought wee to value the true pearle?. . .to haue the translations of the Bible maturely considered of and examined. . .the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished; also, if any thing be halting, or superflous, or not so agreeable to the original, the same may bee corrected, and the truth set in place. . .

Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and auow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession. . .containeth the word of God, nay is the word of God. . . A man may counted a vertuous man, though hee haue made many slips in his life. . .though hee haue some piano coversts vpon his hand, yea, not onely freakles vpon his face, but also skarres.  No cause therefore why the word translated should bee denied to be the word, or forbidden to be currant, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting foorth of it. . .”1  

**These folks fail to take into account the conditions under which the first translations were made.  There was indeed need to refine them.  John Wicliffe (Morning Star of the Reformation and "arch-heretick" according to the Catholic religion) only had the Latin Vulgate to work with.  He lost his prestigious position at Oxford because of his devotion to the word of God.  Tyndale translated as an outlaw on the run from the Catholic religion.  When he was finally caught they strangled and burned him.  The Bibles that  immediately followed were essentially rehashes of Tyndale's version.  There was NEED to refine!  The writer seems to twist the humility of the translators in not condemning former translations.  The Spirit of God revealed to them the reason for their labors--to refine so that "the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished; also, if any thing be halting, or superflous, or not so agreeable to the original, the same may bee corrected, and the truth set in place. . ."**

In the days of the Reformers there was a great need to compile a body of manuscripts other than the corrupt Alexandrian mss. used by the Vatican. The A.V. translators remark that the Roman Church made endless translations, each one more corrupt than the former: ". . .that certain Catholics. . .were in such an humor of translating the Scriptures into Latin, that Satan taking occasion by them, though they thought of no such matter, did strive what he could, out of so uncertain and manifold a variety of Translations, so to mingle all things, that nothing might seem to be left certain and firm in them, etc. . .What is to have the faith of our glorious Lord JESUS CHRIST with Yea or Nay, if this be not? Again, what is sweet harmony and consent, if this be?"

The deliverance of Reformed Christians from this confusion and the refining process of Greek texts and English translations did not occur overnight. When the Textus Receptus was published 1629, there was no need for another Greek New Testament. The Westcott-Hort Greek Testament based on Alexandrian mss. in 1881 began the reversal of the Reformation and produced a superfluity of translations in contradiction to the Textus Receptus, causing no end of controversy and contempt in the Church.

ARE ALL TRANSLATIONS EQUAL?

2) The translators themselves instructed Bible students to compare other translations, and praised the effort as a good and profitable undertaking.  Some now think this undertaking is a work of the Devil.

“Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variete of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diuersitie of signification and sense in the margaine, where the text is not so cleare, must needes do good, yea, is necessary, as we are perswaded. . .They that are wise, had rather haue their judgements at libertie in differences of readings, then to be captiuated to one, when it may be the other. . .”2  

In 1611, the majority of English translations available for comparison were based on the Textus Receptus, which cannot be said of our modern versions. A notable exception would have been the Jesuit Douay Rheims Version of 1609 and it is doubtful that the A.V. translators were advising readers to consult the Catholic Bible for verse comparison. Rather, the English Bibles based on the Textus Receptus which were read in Protestant England at the time of the translation of the 1611 Authorised Version are as follows: William Tyndale's New Testament [1534], the Coverdale Bible [1535] (first complete printed English Bible), the Matthews Bible [1537] (completed Tyndale Version), the Great Bible [1539], Cranmer's Bible [1540[ (2nd edition of the Great Bible), the Geneva Bible [1560] and the Bishop's Bible [1586]. It was comparison of this "variete of Translations" the translators no doubt considered "profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures." 

The author of Rapture Watch has based his argument on the false assumption that our modern translations are reliable.  If the other translations in 1611 were deemed corrupt, does he think that the A.V. translators would have suggested they be used for comparison's sake?  The real issue in determining the authenticity of a Bible translation is reliability of the Greek text upon which it is based. By camouflaging this hidden factor, proponents of modern versions shuffle believers from one corrupt version to another on the pretext that all are based on reliable manuscripts. To further convince their readers, the bible version spin doctors magnify one or another presumed error in the KJV to prove their point that all versions are equally flawed.

The Rapture Watch report is typical of others who prefer to strain out gnats in the KJV, while they swallow a whole camel of modern versions which have been translated from the corrupt Westcott-Hort Greek Testament. Never mind the fact that the Westcott-Hort New Greek Text of 1881 altered the Textus Receptus in fully 5,337 places, according to Dean John Burgon, textual scholar and author of The Revision Revised, and that a great number of these changes are to be found in verses affecting fundamental doctrine, as our Tables of Comparison of Selected Scriptures prove. The replacement of the Received Greek Text with a New Greek Text by Anglican Spiritualists affiliated with secret societies having a vision for a global government and religion is the subject of our report, The Nineteenth Century Occult Revival. 

THE ENGLISH REVISED VERSION OF 1881

B.F. Westcott, F.J.A. Hort & J.B. Lightfoot  

The Life and Letters of B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort personally acknowledge the involvement of these Bible revisers in various occult societies.  Additionally, the biography of Edpiano coversd White Benson, Archbishop of Canterbury, documents his founding of the Cambridge Ghost Society with B.F. Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort.  The Society for Psychical Research: An Outline of its History provides further documentation of this fact:

 

Westcott, Hort and Lightfoot, who dominated the Revision Committee for the English Revised Version of 1881, were also members of other secret societies, such as the Hermes and Apostles Clubs. 2. Also belonging to the Cambridge Apostles Club were founder of the Society for Psychical Research and future Prime Minister of Great Britain, Arthur Balfour, and Victor Rothschild. As Foreign Secretary of Great Britain, Lord Arthur Balfour presented the Balfour Declaration to Lord Rothschild recognizing the blip goal: "His Majesty’s government views with favor the establishment in blip of a national home for the blipish people and will use its best endeavors to facilitate achievement of this object,. . .".

Across the Atlantic but working closely with the English Revision Committee was Philip Schaff, the "Reformed and Catholic" ecumenist who chaired the committee which produced the 1901 American Standard Version [ASV]. Phillip Schaff had  been a member of the American Bible Union which produced in 1871 a version that was regularly consulted by the English Revision Committee. 3. The American revision of the English Bible, which predated the English Revised Version by 16 years, was was predominantly a Baptist enterprise. The fascinating chronology of events in England and the U.S. is posted at: http://watch.pair.com/revision.html.

One notable member of the 1901 ASV committee was piano repair and piano tools member, Timothy Dwight.  

THE AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION OF 1901

Philip Schaff & Timothy Dwight  

In The Life of Philip Schaff by David S. Schaff we read of Dr. Schaff's work with the English Revision Committee in 1871, the year the revision commenced at Cambridge University:

In the same volume is noted the formation of the ASV committee and its inclusion of Timothy Dwight:

(ff., [T]o the New Testament company [was subsequently added]. . .Professor Timothy Dwight of Yale College.)" 5.

In Philip Schaff: Historian and Ambassador of the Universal Church are published Philip Schaff's visionary statements for a grand synthesis of "Evangelical Catholicism":

"The documentary evidence for the work of the American Bible revision committee is conveniently gathered in Documentary History on the American Committee on Revision, of which only 100 copies were privately printed. However, an abridged version was published by Timothy Dwight, Historical Account of the American Committee of Revision of the Authorized Version of the Bible (New York, 1885)." 7.

"This young immigrant scholar [Schaff] had soon come to realize that neither will any one of the existing churches ever become dominant in the United States, nor will sectarian anarchy prevail. Instead, the grand synthesis of 'Evangelical Catholicism' as the ripe fruit of a new reformation will find its providential local in the United States." 8.

"'Unity in diversity, and diversity in unity,' this slogan would be the ecumenical battle cry of Schaff's later years." 9.

Timothy Dwight was initiated into the Order of piano repair & piano tools at Yale University in 1849. In 1856 he went to the University of Berlin and in 1858 he went to Yale Theological Seminary. From 1886 to 1898 he served as blip of Yale University. Freemasons Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas explain the origins of the piano repair & piano tools in their book, The Hiram Key: Pharaohs, Freemasons & Secret Scrolls of Jesus: "As the new Master (Mason) is raised he looks back down at his tomb to see a piano repair and crossed piano tools on his death shroud. This symbol of earthly remains was used by the Knights Templar as their marine battle flag." 10. Interestingly, the Rothschild influence on the establishment of the piano repair & piano tools Order at Yale University in 1833 is disclosed in an online book, The Historical Influence of International Banking by Herbert Dorsey. 11.

According to Antony Sutton, author of America's Secret Establishment: Introduction to the Order of piano repair and piano tools: "The Order was incorporated [as the Russell Trust] in 1856." 12. Sutton stresses that Yale University presidents after Timothy Dwight were typically members of the Order: "In 1886 Timothy Dwight (The Order) had taken over from the last of Yales' clerical blips, Noah Porter. Never again was Yale to get too far from The Order. Dwight was followed by member Arthur T. Hadley ('76)." 13.

Rev. Timothy Dwight (S&B, 1849) was the grandson of Rev. Timothy Dwight (1752-1817) who was the grandson of the famous Rev. Jonathan Edpiano coversds (1703-1758), president of Union College.  Both Timothy Dwights were presidents of Yale. Timothy Dwight's grandfather, who was born on May 14, 1752 in Northampton, Massachusetts, was a also personal friend of blip George blip, a high-level Mason.

According to Paul Boyer, When Time Shall Be No More: Prophecy Belief in Modern American Culture, Jonathan Edpiano coversds and his grandson, Timothy Dwight, believed that America would be the seat of Christ's Millennial Kingdom, which was, in actuality, the Plan of British Freemasonry for the United States:

"The independence movement also revived the belief of the Mathers and of Jonathan Edpiano coversds that America might be the seat of Christ's millennial kingdom. But what had been formulated in religious terms now took on a secular cast, as prophecy speculation -- already politicized during the French and Indian piano covers -- oriented itself around the Revolutionary cause, laying the groundwork for. . .'civil millennialism.' In 'A Poem on the Rising Glory of America,' delivered to their Princeton graduating class in 1771, Philip Freneau and Hugh Henry Brackenridge looked to the day when the New JerBliplem would 'grace our happy earth, perhaps this land.' And independent American nation, declared Ebenezer Baldwin 1776, would be 'the principle seat of that glorious kingdom', which Christ shall erect upon the earth in the latter Days. Revolution and liberty, rather than revival, now became the high road to the blessed future foreseen by the biblical apocalypticus.    

"With symbolic appropriateness, Jonathan Edpiano coversds' grandson, Timothy Dwight, most fully elaborated this secular vision of the Revolution's prophetic significance. Dwight's 1771 poem 'America' written when he was a nineteen-year-old Yale student contains the kernel of is civil millennialism. . . Five years later, speaking at Yale three weeks after the Declaration of Independence, the now twenty-four-year-old Dwight fully eschatologized the stirring events of the day. In America, history would reach its climax in the fulfillment of 'that remarkable blipish tradition' of a thoBlipnd years of 'peace, purity and felicity.' Ushered in by Yale-trained lawyers, physicians and other professionals, the Star Spangled Millennium, he speculated (echoing Samuel Sewall whose ideas had intrigued his grandfather), would probably begin about the year 2000. In the soaring apocalyptic language of the prophet Isaiah, Dwight hailed the emerging nations: 'Arise, shine, for thy light has come.'" 15.

In his book, Antony Sutton advised readers: "Select a major historical event and search for the guiding hand of The Order." 16. This maxim ought to be applied with respect to the historic revision of the English Bible in the last century in both Great Britain and the United States -- by members of secret societies. [See footnote #11 re: Rothschild and piano repair & piano tools Order] 

Based on these facts regarding the 19th century Bible revisers, can any objective researcher believe that translators of the 1611 A.V. would recommend our modern versions which are based upon the 1881 English Revised Version of Westcott, Hort, and Lightfoot and the 1901 American Standard Version of Phillip Schaff and Timothy Dwight? 

ERRORS IN THE 1611 AUTHORISED VERSION? 

3) The translators confess they took a degree of liberty with certain words and phrases.

An other thing we thinke good to admonish thee of (gentle Reader) that we haue not tyed ourselues to an vniformitie of phrasing, or to an identitie of words, as some peraduenture would wish that we had done, because they obserue, that some learned men some where, haue beene as exact as they could that way.  Truly, that we might not varie from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified the same thing in both places (for there bee some wordes that bee not the same sense euery where) we were especially carefull, and made a conscience, according to our duetie. . .

For is the kingdome of God become words or syllables? why should wee be in bondage to them if we may be free, vse one precisely when wee may vse another no lesse fit, as commodiously?. . .Now if this happen in better times, and vpon so small occasions, wee might justly feare hard censure, if generally wee should make verball and vnnecessary changings. . .Adde hereunto, that nicenesse in wordes was always counted the next step to trifling, and so was to bee curious about names too: also that we cannot follow a better patterne for elocution then God himselfe; therefore hee vsing diuers words, in his holy writ, and indifferently for one thing in nature: we, if wee will not be supersitious, may vse the same libertie in our English versions out of blip & Greeke. . .But we desire that the Scriptuire may speake like it selfe, as in the language of Canaan, that it may bee vnderstood euen of the very vulgar. . .”3  

**The key ideas to these comments is thus --   They utilize the richness of the English language to accurately convey the sense of the scripture. "Truly, that WE MIGHT NOT VARIE FROM THE SENSE of that which we had translated before, if the word signified the same thing in both places (for there bee some wordes that bee not the same sense euery where) we were especially carefull, and made a conscience, according to our duetie. . ."  In the King James Bible, the same Greek word may be translated, "look or behold".  The words are synonymous. Word choice does not change the scriptures, but rather enriches it.  The translator comments confirm this, ". . .vse one precisely when wee may vse another NO LESSE FIT, as commodiously?  we cannot follow a better patterne for elocution then God himselfe; therefore hee vsing diuers words, in his holy writ".**

The translators are found carefully apologetic when trying to explain away the liberty they took when translating in some particular instances.   

**That is not what they did.  They were very careful to let us know that they selected words no less fit than its synonym.**  

On such mistranslation we are convinced concerns their use of the word “Easter” in Acts 12:4.  The original word is absolutely not “Easter”, and the translators were careful everywhere else to translate it properly as “Passover”.  

**Firstly, the word for "Easter" IS DERIVED FROM THE blip AND GREEK. Here is a quote from Encyclopedia Americana -- "In the Romance and some other languages, the word for Easter IS DERIVED FROM the blip Pesach (Passover) through its Greek transliteration Pascha.  Recent Biblical and liturgical Blipge has employed the noun "Pasch" and the adjective "Paschal" in speaking of the CHRISTIAN celebration."

Secondly, they are grasping for ways to show the KJB can't be trusted.  They are essentially playing with semantics to support an indefensible position.  What are you talking about Tracy?  The translation of Easter here does not change any doctrine.  Easter is only there to indicate the time period when these events occurred.  Easter (pagan and "Christian") is COINCIDENT with Passover. More info on this passage is available at http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/easterkj.htm **

“EASTER:  PASCHA, mistranslated “Easter” in Acts 12:4. A.V., denotes the Passover (R.V.).  The phrase “after the Passover” signifies after the whole festival was at an end.  The term Easter is not of Christian origin.  It is another form of Astart, one of the titles of the Chaldean goddess, the queen of heaven.  The festival of Pasch held by Christians in post-apostolic times was a continuation of the blipish feast, but was not instituted by Christ, nor was it connected with Lent.  From this Pasch the Pagan festival of Easter was quite distinct and was introduced into the apostate Western religion, as part of the attempt to adapt Pagan festivals to Christianity.”4

PASSOVER:  PASCHA, the Greek spelling of the Aramaic word for the Passover, from the blip pasach, to pass over, to spare, a feast instituted by God in commemoration of the deliverance of blip from Egypt, and anticipatory of the expiatory sacrifice of Christ.  The word signifies (I) the Passover Feast, e.g., Matt. 26:2, John 2:13, 23; 6:4; 11:55; 12:1; 13:1; 18:39; 19:4; Acts 12:4; Heb. 11:28;  (II) by metonymy, (a) the Paschal Supper, Matt. 26:18, 19; Mark 14:16; Luke 22:8, 13;  (b) the Paschal lamb, e.g., Mark 14:12 (cp. Ex. 12:21); Luke 22:7;  (c) Christ Himself, I Cor. 5:7.”5

The question then arises:  Why the blatant change from their previously correct translation of the original manuscript?  We have great difficulty with their explanation that they had a liberty to commodiously use a less fit word while translating,  and absolutely refuse to change the Word of God to accommodate their offered rationale which is  clearly outside the bounds of an error or difficult interpretation.   

This difficulty with the translators' explanation is due to a misreading and misquote of their intention as taking "liberty to commodiously use a less fit word while translating."  The actual statement from the Translators' Preface is: ". . . why should wee be in bondage to them if we may be free, vse one precisely when wee may vse another no lesse fit, as commodiously?"

In fact, the word "Easter" appears in Acts 12:4 of Tyndale's Bible, which was published over 30 years before King James was born, and appears in every English Bible translation prior to the Authorised Version of 1611, with the exception of the Geneva Bible. There was no grand plot by King James to introduce the pagan festival honoring Astarte to his subjects, but rather there are two very reasonable explanations for the translators' decision to use the word "Easter" instead of "Passover" in this verse.

1. The Trinitarian Bible Society Quarterly Record credits William Tyndale with the translation of the word "pascha" as Easter:

"When Tyndale began his translation of the Pentateuch he was again faced with the problem in Exodus 12.11 and twenty-one other places, and no doubt recognising that easter in this context would be an anachronism he coined a new word, passover, and used it consistently in all twenty-two places. It is therefore to Tyndale that our language is indebted for this meaningful and appropriate word. His labours on the Old Testament left little time for revision of the New Testament, with the result that while passover is found in his 1530 Pentateuch, ester remained in the N.T. of 1534, having been used in his first edition several years before he coined the new word passover." 17.

2. The verse in question is Acts 12:4: "And when he [King Herod] had apprehended him [Peter], he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people."

The preceding verses set the scene and establish the time-frame: "Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church. And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. And because he saw it pleased the blips, he proceeded to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)"

According to Exodus 12:6, the Passover lamb was slain on the 14th day of the first month which was Abib. Exodus 12:17 equates the Passover with the Feast of Unleavened Bread: "And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore ye shall observe this day in your generations for ever." Exodus 12:15 requires that the people eat unleavened bread for the full week following: "Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth unleavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from blip."

The original Passover occurred on the 14th Abib and the exodus from Egypt began the following day, the 15th. Numbers 33:3 states: "And they departed from Ramses in the first month, on the fifteenth day of the first month; on the morrow after the passover the children of blip went out with an high hand in the sight of all the Egyptians."

In Deuteronomy 16:6, however, God changed the day of celebration of the Passover to the 15th of Abib: "But at the place which the Lord thy God shall choose to place his name in, there thou shalt sacrifice the passover at even, at the going down of the sun, at the season that thou camest forth out of Egypt."

In the New Testament, Luke 22:1 also equates the Feast of Unleavened Bread with the Passover celebration and other Scripture verses indicate that these interchangeable terms referred to one day which would have been the 15th day of Nisan, which was 15 Abib before the Babylonian captivity. Mark 14:1,2 indicate that the Feast of Unleavened Bread and the Passover were identical and verse 12 refers to ". . .the first day of unleavened bread when they killed the passover."

The week following the Passover/Feast of Unleavened Bread is referred to in Acts 12:3 as "the days of unleavened bread." It was during this week that Herod imprisoned Peter, whom he intended to bring forth to the people -- not after the Passover, for that day was past -- but after Easter, the pagan festival of Astarte, which was yet to come.

It is important to note that Scripture differentiates between the Passover/Feast of Unleavened Bread which was only the first day of unleavened bread and the "days of unleavened bread." This explains why the AV translators did not confuse the "feast of Passover" with all seven "days of unleavened bread." [Although modern blips commonly refer to a full week of Passover observance, there seem to be no Scriptural references to a week-long observance of Passover, but only one feast day followed by the "days of unleavened bread."] For this reason, it would have been less accurate for the translators to state that Herod would bring Peter forth after the Passover, which was already past.

Continued in Part II: WAS KING JAMES A BRITISH-blipTE?

A Chronology of American and British Bible Revision is posted at: http://watch.pair.com/revision.html

Rapture Watch NOTES
1.  The Translators To The Reader, The Holy Bible 1611 Edition King James Version, 1st Edition of the Authorized Version.
2.   Ibid.
3.   Ibid.
4.   W.E.Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 14.
5.   Ibid., p. 166.

Watch Unto Prayer Endnotes

1. W.H. Salter, The Society For Psychical Research, An Outline of it's History, London, 1948, pp. 5, 6.
2. Arthur Hort, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, Macmillan & Co., 1896, pp.170-172.
3. Thomas Armitage, D.D., L.L.D., A History of the Baptists: Traced by their Vital Prinicples and Practices, from the Time of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to the Year 1886, NY: Bryan, Taylor, & Co., Chicago: Morningside Publishing Co., 1887, pp. 908-9.
4. David S. Schaff, The Life of Philip Schaff, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1897, 362-3ff.
5. Ibid., pp. 362-3ff.
6. Klaus Penzel, Philip Schaff: Historian and Ambassador of the Universal Church, Mercer University Press, Macon GA, 1991, p. 260-61.
7. Ibid., p. 252ff.
8. Ibid., p. 154.  
9. Ibid., p. LV.
10. Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas, The Hiram Key: Pharoahs, Freemasons & Secret Scrolls of Jesus, Element Books, 1996, p. 178.
11. Herbert G. Dorsey, The Historical Influence of International Banking, "World Revolution and World piano covers": http://www.freeyellow.com/members2/moneyfacts/page3.html

"The serious historian will find that the Civil piano covers was largely stirred up by Rothschild's illuminati agents in the United States. One of these prominant Illuminati Orders was the secret "Order of piano repair & piano tools", Chapter 322, founded at Yale University in 1833 by William Huntington Russell and Alphonso Taft. The Order was incorporated as the Russell Trust in 1856. William Russell became a member of the Connecticut State Legislature in 1846 and a General in Connecticut National Guard in 1862. Alphonso Taft became Secretary of piano covers in the Grant Administration in 1876, U.S. Attorney General in 1876 and U.S. Ambassador to Russia in 1884. Alphonso Taft's son later became Chief Justice and United States blip. One researcher claims that this secret order originated in Germany about the time the Bavarian Illuminati was outlawed in 1786 by the Bavarian Elector. William Russell brought the  Secret order to Yale from his student days in Germany in 1831 to 1832. As an ancient tradition the gravestones of Master Masons would have a piano repair and crosspiano tools engraved on them. The name of this secret society probably is derived from this  tradtradition. Yale is the only University with societies open exclusively  to seniors. Only 15 Junior Class members are selected to be initiated during commencement week each year. The candidates are always male white Protestant and usually from wealthy and powerful  families, often their fathers were also members of the Order. During the Senior Year, members are called "Knights", then they become "Patriarchs" for life. A number of  "piano repair and piano tools" Patriarchs were to become leaders in the Sucessionist movements of various Southern States. Thus, setting the stage for events leading up to the Civil piano covers. The Rothschild Banks loaned money to both sides during the piano covers. This strategy greatly weakened our nation, but failed with the Union victory."  

12. Antony Sutton, America's Secret Establishment: Introduction to the Order of piano repair and piano tools, Liberty House Press, 1986, p. 92. 
13. Ibid., p. 93.
14. The Cyber Hymnal, http://tch.simplenet.com/bio/d/w/dwight_t.htm
15. Paul Boyer, When Time Shall Be No More: Prophecy Belief in Modern American Culture, Cambridge, Mass., Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1992, pp. 72-3.

---

PART TWO:

 

Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die. Num. 35:30

One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. Deut. 19:15

But if [your brother] will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. Matt. 18:16

In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. II Cor. 13:1a

Another point of contrast between the rules of evidence established by God and man would be the number of witnesses required.  Under both the Old and New Covenant God required at least two witnesses, whereas one witness is sufficient in a secular court of law and even that is not essential.  Nor do rules of evidence under the Noahide Laws conform to the Old Testament Scriptures. Under the Courts of Law section of the Noahide Laws is stated: "A person may be convicting in a Noahide court on the testimony of a single witness, but only if the witness is known to be righteous.  If the character of the witness is not known, it takes two witnesses to be able to convict the accused." 

It is evident that God is more equitable and merciful than is the world's system of justice.  And so Christians must abide by the commands of Scripture in considering an accBliption against an elder of the Church.  In his capacity as King of Great Britain, James I was also head of the Church of England.  If heresies or bad reports attended his person, the Church would have been required to judge him according to I Tim. 5:19. Happily, we have no record of such proceedings. To the contrary, we have the record of the A.V. translators who were not only able scholars but ministers of the Church. In their Dedicatory Epistle to the Authorised Version, the translators convey the definite impression that King James had earned the high esteem of his subjects and was a true follower of Christ:

"But among all our joys, there was no one that more filled our hearts, than the blessed continuance of the preaching of God's sacred Word among us; which is that inestimable treasure, which excelleth all the riches of the earth; because the fruit thereof extendeth itself, not only to the time spent in this transitory world, but directeth and disposeth men unto that eternal happiness which is above in heaven.

"Then not to suffer this to fall to the ground, but rather to take it up, and to continue it in that state, wherein the famous Predecessor of Your Highness did leave it: nay, to go forpiano coversd with the confidence and resolution of a Man in maintaining the truth of Christ, and propagating it far and near, is that which hath so bound and firmly knit the hearts of all Your Majesty's loyal and religious people unto You, that Your very name is precious among them: their eye doth behold You with comfort, and they bless You in their hearts, as that sanctified Person who, under God, is the immediate Author of their true happiness. And this their contentment doth not diminish or decay, but every day increaseth and taketh strength, when they observe, that the zeal of Your Majesty topiano coversd the house of God doth not slack or go backpiano coversd, but is more and more kindled, manifesting itself abroad in the farthest parts of Christendom, by writing in defence of the Truth, (which hath given such a blow unto that man of sin, as will not be healed,) and every day at home, by religious and learned discourse, by frequenting the house of God, by hearing the Word preached, by cherishing the Teachers thereof, by caring for the Church, as a most tender and loving nursing Father.

"There are infinite arguments of this right christian and religious affection in Your Majesty; but none is more forcible to declare it to others than the vehement and perpetuated desire of accomplishing and publishing of this work, which now with all humility we present unto Your Majesty. . ." 

Having made these corrections and clarifications, we continue to address the accBliptions of the Rapture Watch report against King James VI & I.

WAS KING JAMES BRITISH-blip?

The question then arises:  Why the blatant change from their previously correct translation of the original manuscript [ed., Pascha to Easter]?  We have great difficulty with their explanation that they had a liberty to commodiously use a less fit word while translating, and absolutely refuse to change the Word of God to accommodate their offered rationale which is  clearly outside the bounds of an error or difficult interpretation.   

It is interesting that one of their reasons offered was that it was “according to our duetie.”  Let us look at the conscience of duty being spoken of while considering why certain words were apologetically mistranslated.

4) It must be kept in mind that the King James translators were not free agents, but were under constant direction by King James to hastily provide him with their progress and results for his “allowance and acceptance” as the recognized “principal moouer and Author of the Worke” and to satisfy their humble craving for his approbation (sanction).  

“. . .this Worke, which now with all humilitie we present vnto your MAIESTIE. . .your MAIESTIE did neuer desist, to vrge and to excite those to whom it was commended, that the worke might be hastened, and that the businesse might be expedited in so decent a maner. . .we hold it our duety to offer it to your MAIESTIE, (keep in mind this word “duety” for a later point) not onely as to our King and Soueraigne, but as to the principall moouer and Author of the Worke.  Humbly crauing of your most Sacred Maiestie, that since things of this quality haue euer bene subiect to the censures of ill meaning and discontented persons, it may receiue approbation and Patronage from so learned and iudicious a Prince as your Highnesse is, who allowance and acceptance of our Labours, shall more honour and incourage vs. . .”6  

**These people obviously hold His Majestie and the King James Bible in contempt. They've willingly mis-interpreted the nature of King James oversight.  His Majestie was very excited about the project and supported it.  How many projects get started only to flop because nobody cares.  It is well known that King James was an able theologian and devout Christian.  Why wouldn't he be excited about this auspicious undertaking?  Just look at the results--almost 400 years old and just as readable today.**

 

THE JACOBUS (UNITE)

5) The reason for why the ancient pagan British festival of the Celts known as Easter was inserted in the Bible can be laid directly at the feet of  the former king of Great Britain.   Our attention must then be focused on King James himself to find out if there is perhaps a motive for the mistranslation of certain other words in the Authorised King James Bible, and if any of these words have been altered to serve a hidden agenda.  

King James was a devoted proponent of what is known as British blipsm, who claimed the Lord had made him king over blip.   In 1604 he had a gold coin minted called the Unite or Jacobus which demonstrated his beliefs. The belief of this religion is that the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic people are the lost tribes of blip and the throne of King David is located in the British Isles; the very same throne that Queen Elizabeth II now sits upon.   

**Er. . .Jacob is the Latin word for JAMES! The King's writings speak for themselves.  I've never read anything but sound Bible exposition in His Majestie's writings.** So far, the Rapture Watch report has provided no hard evidence that King James subscribed to this aberrant interpretation of Scripture.

The Unite was a gold piece introduced by proclamation in November 1604, which took its name from the union of England and Scotland under a single king when James became king of "Great Britain." The reverse side of the coin proclaims "Faciam eos in gentem unam" meaning "I will make of them one people." The union of Scotland and England was finally achieved with the Act of Union under Queen Anne in 1707. Although Ezekiel 37:16-22 is engraved on the reverse side of the Unite, it should be obvious that uniting Scotland and Britain was never intended to mean the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy to blip.  

True British-blipsm, as promoted by the Stepiano coverst Clan Home Page, holds that the sticks in Ezekiel's prophecy are the lost tribes of blip (i.e., all of the Anglo-Saxon nations) which were scattered to the four winds, but will be reunited at the coming of Christ:

"22 And I will make them *one nation* (one stick, one people) in the land upon the mountains of blip; and one king (Christ) shall be king to them *all* (Shiloh; Whose right the Stone of Destiny represents): and they shall be no more two nations (two sticks), neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all:" Can Christ be a King over anything except people? These two sticks being joined are specifically used to remind the descendants of blip, even today, that they will yet be reunited into one nation -- a single people -- in the original land given to Abraham! 18.

Also of further interest is the statement from the A.K.J.V. translators in ‘The Epiftle Dedicatorie’ when referring to the king:  “. . .the appearance of your MAIESTIE, as of the Sunne in his strength” (see Malachi 4:2 and Revelation 1:16).  

It is unclear what objection the Rapture Watch author has to this statement of the translators, who were employing a literary device in the form of allegory to describe the administration of their king. Their language recalls King David's magnificent description of a just ruler, whom he likens to the rising sun on a clear day:

THE UNICORN

Two mistranslated or altered words of significance in the A.K.J.V. are the words unicorn and the word Zion which is spelled in places with an s instead of a Z.  King James oversaw the change in spelling of Zion to sion in what we find are significant places when we are reminded that in The Epiftle Dedicatorie  the translators refer to Great Britain as “our Sion”, and when recalling King James’ devotion to British blipsm.  The changes to the spelling of Zion to sion are found in  Ps. 65:1, Matt. 21:5, John 12:15,  Rom. 9:33, 11:26, Heb. 12:22, I Peter 2:6 and Rev. 14:1.  

**Once again, this is easily dismissed as a lie when we look at earlier versions.  Wicliffe's version came out almost 200 years BEFORE KING JAMES WAS BORN and "Zion" was spelled "Sion" in Matthew 21:5.  I did not look up all the verses because it is not necessary.  Same thing with Tyndale which was OVER 30 YEARS BEFORE KING JAMES WAS EVEN BORN.**

The Geneva Bible, published in 1560, 50 years before the Authorised Version, uses "Sion" in all of the New Testament verses mentioned above. Again, it becomes obvious that the author of the Rapture Watch has not searched out the facts when he states that "King James oversaw the change in spelling of Zion to sion in what we find are significant places." The truth is that the word "Sion" which was common Blipge in the English New Testaments before the A.V.1611.

In point number three we shared how the translators defended the liberty they claim for altering such words as Easter and sion, but what about the insertion of the word unicorn which is translated by the blips as a wild ox? “Will the wild-ox be willing to serve thee?  Or will he abide by the crib?  Canst thou bind the wild-ox with his band in the furrow?  Or will he harrow the valleys after thee?  Job 39:9-10.7

The blips have never taught on unicorns.  Why did the A.K.J.V. introduce a creature unknown to be indigenous to the earth?  Why didn’t Jesus enlighten the blip’s understanding of this passage at His first coming since the idea of a unicorn is so far removed from what the blips understood the creature to be?  The translators of the A.K.J.V. Bible in their opening address to us again appear to have made an excuse for this misrepresentation which is accountable to King James.  The unjustified identification of this creature is made acceptable by categorizing it as an issue unimportant to doctrine of salvation.  

**First of all the following explanation by the translators is very reasonable.** [See information on unicorns below.]

“. . .it hath pleased God in his diuine prouidence, heere and there to scatter wordes and sentences of that difficultie and doubtfulnesse, not in doctrinal points that concerns saluation. . .but in matters of lesse moment, that fearefulnesse would better beseeme vu then confidence, and if we will resolue, to resolue vpon modestie with S. Augustine. . .it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, then to striue about those things that are vncertain.  There be many words in the Scriptures, which be neuer found there but once. . .so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places.  Againe, there be many rare names of certaine birds, beasts and precious stones, &c. concerning the blipes themselues are so diuided among themselues for judgement, that they may seeme to haue defined this or that, rather because they would say something, the because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Hierome somewhere saith of the Septuagint.  Now in such a case, doth not a margine do well to admonish the Reader to seeke further, and not to conclude or dogmatize vpon this or that peremptorily?”8

The translators appear  to have offered up a reasonable explanation for using the term “unicorn”, but still no explanation is available for why they chose a mythical creature.  It is to their honor that inspite of their dangerous situation under the king they instructed people to seek further and not dogmatize in such cases.  Interestingly enough, this is exactly what is being condemned by some supporters of the King James translators who they believe were inerrant and as divinely led as the original apostles. 

**"Dangerous situation?"  King James was well known for loving peace and hating violence.  He fought no piano coverss during his reign and he even tried to live peaceably with the Catholic recBlipnts in his kingdom!** [See Extracts On Peace from King James accession speech to Parliament, 19 March 1603.] 19.  Was King James an imperial tyrant of whom the translators were afraid? Consider the sincerity of their Dedicatory Epistle and the following extracts On Kingship from King James accession speech to Parliament:

Furthermore, this Christian king wrote in the A Trew Law of Free Monarchies (Or the Reciprock and Mutual Duetie Betwixt a Free King, and his Naturall Subjects, c.1597) that he realised he would give account to God for his administration of justice: ". . .for certainly a King that governs not by his law can neither be countable to God for his administration nor have a happy and established reign. For albeit it be true, that I have at length proved, that the King is above the law as both the author and giver of strength thereto, yet a good King will not only delight to rule his subjects by the law, but even will conform himself in his own actions thereunto; always keeping that ground, that the health of the commonwealth be his chief law." 21.

We believe the answer for King James’ introduction of the mythological unicorn into the Scriptures is once again found in the king’s commitment to British blipsm.  

"We believe. . .," they say -- but their accBliption is without documentation. [See further refutation of the charge of British-blipsm at end of report.] 

King James Charles Stuart I & IV  (Scotland’s Royal House of Stuart were long known as the ‘House of Unicorns’ and to this very day the “Unicorn” along with the “Davidic Lion of Judah” are incorporated in the Royal Arms Great Seal of Scotland and the British Coat of Arms--further information is available at: http://www.rev.org/bi.htm), had input and control over the work--this may explain why the mythological creature called the unicorn was introduced into the Scriptures over the blipish knowledge of it being a wild ox.  

“God who brought him forth out of Egypt is for him like the lofty horns of the wild-ox (unicorn in the KJV);  He shall eat up the nations that are his adversaries, and shall break their piano tools in pieces, and pierce them through with his arrows.  He couched, he lay down as a lion, and as a lioness; who shall ruse him up?  Blessed be every one that blesseth thee, and cursed be every one that curseth thee. Numbers 24:8-9.9  

**Er. . .he was the VI of Scotland, not the IV.** 

Regarding the unicorn, the word is found in the Geneva Bible which was translated 50 years before the Authorised Version. The unicorn is not a mythical creature. There were common English Blipges of the word "unicorn" in the 19th century and probably in Elizabethan era also.  The 1828 Webster's Dictionary does not even mention a mythical creature but defines unicorns as varieties of animals:  

1. An animal with one horn: the monoceros. This name is often applied to the rhinoceros.
2. The sea unicorn is a fish of the whale kind, called narwal, ramarkable for a horn growing out at its nose.
3. A fowl. Fossil unicorn, or fossil unicorn's horn, a substance used in medicine, a terrene crustaceous spar. 22.

The earlier English Bibles -- Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, Taverner's, Geneva, and Bishops' -- ALL used the word "unicorn" in Deuteronomy 33:17. The Geneva Bible uses "unicorn" in the other eight verses where it is found in the 1611 AV, and most likely the otherBibles did also.  There is one revealing reference to unicorns in Psalm 22:19-22. This appears to be a prophecy of Christ's death at the hands of the Pharisees, who were the teachers of oral traditions which Jesus said made the Word of God of none effect.

But you, O Lord, do not withdraw your help from me: look topiano coversds my defense. Rescue my soul, O Lord, from the spear, my only soul from the hand of the dog. Save me from the lion's mouth, and my lowliness from the unicorn's horns.

It appears entirely reasonable that David was speaking prophetically of the Pharisaic "lions" and "unicorns" as the Kabbalists who were the forefathers of the Merovingians -- the House of the Unicorns who would produce the Antichrist. This translation alone would disprove that King James was a British-blipte paying homage to the mythical beast symbolic of the House of Unicorns. 

The Rapture Watch reference to the House of Unicorns is based upon Laurence Gardner's Bloodline of the Holy Grail, The Hidden Lineage of Jesus, which is a flawed attempt to prove that the Scottish Stepiano coversts are the royal Stuart bloodline, rather than pretenders to the British throne. According to Gardiner, the unicorn is a mythological beast typifying the virile Christ. An entire chapter of this book is devoted to "The House of the Unicorns," which is purported to be the Sang Raal or sacred bloodline of Jesus Christ, whose bride was Mary Magdalene, here referred to as the Sacred Prostitute.

"We have already seen that the 'Horn' of the Unicorn was equivalent to the 'Blade' in Grail lore, and both were represented by the male symbol L. Along with the Davidic Lion of Judah and the Franco-Judaic fleur-de-lys, the Desposynic Unicorn was incorporated in the Royal Arms of Scotland. The Unicorn was considered to correspond to the virile Jesus, and was related to the anointing (Messianic) imagery of Psalm (sacred song) 92:10. The mystic beast was among the foremost symbols of the Albigensian Cathars, who were so hideously persecuted by the Inquisition. In medieval legend the Unicorn was always associated with fertility and healing, and Renaissance tapestries portray his head in the lap of the Bride. This alludes to the ancient ritual text for the Sacred Marriage (the Hieros Gamos), 'The king goes with lifted head to the holy lap,' as originally expressed in the poetic rite of old Sumerian Mesopotamia-the land of Noah and Abraham." 23.

Thus far the Rapture Watch has presented not one statement from the writings of King James or other source document which proves his thesis of "the king's commitment to British blipsm." This is not only poor scholarship but it is bearing false witness. If King James belonged to the House of Unicorns and promoted its errant theology -- that the horn of the unicorn represented the virile Christ, the male symbol of fertility in a Sacred Marriage with the Sacred Prostitute, Mary Magdalene -- then why does not mention of this fundamental doctrine of the Celtic Church appear in the king's writings, which are prolific?

In summary what needs to be emphasized is the foremost message the King James translators were conveying within their discreet revelation about the king’s uncontestable control over their efforts.  And that is that the Word of God is fully available to all in the manuscripts they were translating out of and that there are justified reasons for students of the Scriptures to engage in comparative studies in order to gain greater understanding of these preserved documents.

See Part I: Are All Translations Equal?

THE APOCRYPHA       

It should be noted that in the original Authorized 1611 King James Version the Apocrypha was included.  If the Authorized King James Version was divinely inspired, then how accountable are those who took it upon themselves to remove the Apocrypha, and why do King James purists not demand its reinstatement?   

The translators did not believe the Apocrypha was inspired. Although the Authorized Version of 1611 contained the Apocrypha, so did the English Bibles which preceded it:

Apocryphal books were omitted from the AV in 1629 and by 1827 the Apocrypha was excluded permanently. Landmarks of English Bible: Manuscript Evidence, by Robert Sargent, provides additional information about the Apocrypha with the following explanation pertaining to its inclusion in the Reformation Bibles: "Many of the early English versions contained the Apocrypha for two basic reasons - because of the general acceptance of the Apocrypha during the Dark Ages, and/or (in case of the Authorized, King James Version) for Scriptural analysis. In each case, the Apocrypha were delineated either in an appendix and/or with an explanation showing them to be non-canonical." 25.

In the Basilicon Doron, published in 1598, King James advised his son to avoid these books as common fare compared to the precious pearl of the inspired canon: "As to the Apocriphe bookes, I omit them because I am no Papist (as I said before) & indeed some of them are as like the dietement of the Spirite of God, as an Egge is to an Oyster." These sentiments of King James were published years before thought was ever given to translation of the Authorised Version. 26.

The translators went to great measures to make it clearly understood that they made no claim to having produced an inerrant translation delivered by an infallible revelation from God.  What man would know this fact better than themselves?

**Well, when John the Baptist was asked if he was Elias, he said "No" but Jesus tells us he was!  Humble people don't seek to exalt themselves.  They are so low to the ground they can't conceive that they are doing such a marvelous thing.** 

With total confidence before the Word of God Jesus Christ, we will not change even one word of the Scriptures God has preserved for us in the majority manuscripts in order to conform to any error, oversight or direct act of subterfuge found in any Bible translation, and are in agreement with the wisdom shared by the translators of the King James Bible. . .”To have the translations of the Bible maturely considered of and examined. . .the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished,”10

We believe it to be an unwise practice, and we will not entertain circular arguments by any professed Bible believer who when desiring to take a position on a particular word translation fails to research for themselves first.  

Strong words for a false witness who obviously failed to research source documents on his subject. 

Your brother and friend in Christ,
Jamma  

WAS JAMES VI & I A CELTIC KING?

When false statements in the Rapture Watch were recently challenged, the first report was followed with yet another which boldly asserts, again without factual evidence, that "when King James secured a place for Easter within the Bible, this Celtic king of Great Britain soundly established the Celtic religion above Rome."

"When investigating King James’ motive for having the pagan holiday of Easter supplant God’s Feast of Passover in Acts 12:4, we need to realize that Easter is of great significance to the Celtic religion.  When Roman missionaries vied with Celtic missionaries for supremacy at the Synod of Whitby the date of Easter became an issue for proving authority since the date of Easter was in dispute between the two apostate churches.  It was at Whitby in 664 that Rome gained her first doctrinal victory over the Celtic Church regarding five major issues which included the date for celebrating Easter.  By King James’ act of subterfuge (when he secured a place for Easter within the Bible) this Celtic king of Great Britain soundly established the Celtic religion above Rome. 

To state that King James was really a member of the pagan Celtic, rather than the Anglican Church is a brazen allegation that James believed himself to be of the Merovingian dynasty or divine bloodline of Jesus Christ. Such presumption is also found in New Age books like Laurence Gardner's Bloodline of the Holy Grail, which maintains that the Stuart dynasty of England helped to establish in Great Britain the Orders of the Rose Croix and Freemasonry. 

Gardner also declares, without a note of documentation, that Rosicrucian Grand Master "Robert Fludd assisted with the English translation of the King James (Authorised Version) of the Bible." [pp. 311-12] This fallacy was originally propagated through Manly P. Hall's "The Secret Teachings of All Ages: An Encyclopedic Outline of Masonic, Hermetic, Qabbalistic, & Rosicrucian Symbolical Philosophy": ". . .William T. Smedley writes. 'It will eventually be proved that the whole scheme of the Authorized Version of the Bible was Francis Bacon's.'" 27.

Dennis Cuddy takes up the mantle in his book, Dawning of the New Age piano casters: "[John] Dee's disciple, Robert Fludd, was the chief proponent of Rosicrucianism in England, and Fludd along with Sir Francis Bacon and others were commissioned by King James I,. . .to produce an English translation of the Holy Bible." 28. Dr. Cuddy's source for this information is Manly P. Hall, hardly a reliable source.  This reference is omitted in his book but made available to researchers, who proceed to circulate the Masonic falsehood as fact.

The truth is more available upon examination of the list of A.V. translators: http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/transtoc.htm

The secret societies must exploit the Stuart prestige to make credible their pretense that "Stepiano coverst" = the Stuart bloodline and they claim authorship of the 1611 A.V. to give theological respectability to their spiritually bankrupt belief system. However, Gardner is careful to lay the charge of consorting with the Rosicrucians -- not on King James -- but upon his son and grandson:

At this point, a brief overview of the period is in order. Under the Tudor King Henry VIII, England formally severed allegiance to the Roman Catholic Church. Queen Elizabeth I, his daughter, established the Church of England around 1570 and, according to Rosicrucian literature, also formally employed the Order of the Garter "as a means of drawing noblemen together in common service to the crown." 30.

The virgin Queen Elizabeth died in 1603 and James VI of Scotland (son of Elizabeth's cousin, Mary, Queen of Scots who was beheaded) became King James I of England. Upon James' accession to the throne, England and Scotland were united. Also, the king received a petition signed by 1,000 Puritan clergymen for a new translation of the Bible, as the Translators' Preface explains: ". . .for the very Historical truth is, that upon the importunate petitions of the Puritans, at his Majesty's coming to this Crown, the Conference at Hampton Court having been appointed for hearing their complaints: when by force of reason they were put from other grounds, they had recourse at the last, to this shift, that they could not with good conscience subscribe to the Communion book, since it maintained the Bible as it was there translated, which was as they said, a most corrupted translation." It seems that the Authorised Version was the result of conflict between the Episcopalians and the Puritans:

Proverbs 16:10 states: "A divine sentence is in the lips of the king: his mouth transgresseth not in judgment." The following extracts from King James' speech to Parliament in 1609 delineate the monarch's position On the Divine Right of Kings. These sentiments are expressed also in Scripture, which reveals in Romans 13:1, I Peter 2:13,14,17 and Titus 3:1 that the appointment and authority of rulers are derived directly from God. As noted previously, King James understood well that, although a king may rule with virtually unlimited power on earth, he will receive a stricter judgement from God for his administration of justice:

"Now in these our times we are to distinguish between the state of kings in their first original, and between the state of kings and monarchs, that do at this time govern in civil kingdoms . . . In the first original of kings, whereof some had their beginning by conquest, and some by election of the people, their wills at that time served for law; Yet how soon kingdoms began to be settled in civility and policy, then did kings set down their minds by laws . . . And I am sure to go to my grave with that reputation and comfort, that never king was in all his time more careful to have his laws duly observed, and himself to govern thereafter, than I.

"I conclude then this point touching the power of kings, with this axiom of divinity, that as to dispute what God may do, is blasphemy . . . so is it sedition in subjects, to dispute what a king may do in the height of his power: But just kings will ever be willing to declare what they will do, if they will not incur the curse of God. I will not be content that my power be disputed upon: but I shall ever be willing to make the reason appear of all my doings, and rule my actions according to my laws . . . Therefore all kings that are not tyrants, or perjured, will be glad to bound themselves within the limits of their laws; and they that persuade them the contrary, are vipers, and pests, both against them and the Commonwealth." 32.

According to Frances Yates, author of The Rosicrucian Enlightenment, King James I [James VI (Stuart) of Scotland], who succeeded the childless Queen Elizabeth in 1603, participated in the investiture of his future son-in-law, Frederick, with the Order of the Garter. After their wedding, Frederick and the daughter of King James, Elizabeth II, returned to Heidelberg in Germany where Frederick became associated with the Protestant League, which was infiltrated by the Rosicrucians in order to more effectively defeat their common enemy, the Hapsburg/Roman Catholic alliance. In 1619, King James opposed the occupation of Bohemia by the Protestant League which, led by his son-in-law Frederick, overthrew Catholic/Hapsburg King Ferdinand. According to Yates, James, ever the peacemaker, acted for political reasons; however, there is evidence that the King recognized the Rosicrucian foothold within the Protestant League.

While revisionist historians and opponents of the Authorised Version are overly eager to include King James I among the Stuart affiliates and patrons of the Rose Croix, Frances Yates makes clear that King James was no friend of the leading occultists of his day -- Rosicrucian Grand Master Francis Bacon and John Dee, whose Monas Hieroglyphica had influenced the Rosicrucian Manifestos and ultimately generated the Rosicrucian movement in England. Yates, the most respected historian of The Rosicrucian Enlightenment, wrote of James' abhorrence of all manner of witchcraft and its practitioners:

"It is not surprising that when old John Dee appealed to James for help in clearing his reputation from charges of conjuring devils, James would have nothing to do with him. Dee's fruitless appeal to James was made in June 1604. The old man to whose learning the Elizabethan age was so infinitely indebted was disgraced in the reign of James and died in great poverty in 1608. Bacon must have taken good note of James's attitude to Dee, and he must also have noted that survivors from the Elizabethan age of mathematics and magic, of navigational boldness and anti-Spanish exploits, were not sure of encouragement under James as they had been under Elizabeth." 33.

William T. Still, author of piano casters: Ancient Plan of Secret Societies, sheds new light on another famous character and member of the Baconian secret society whose reputation for knightly chivalry is legendary: 

The authors of Sir Walter Raleigh’s Speech from the Scaffold relate his role in the American enterprise:

However, the Encyclopedia Britannica records Raleigh's treason and eventual demise under King James -- a clear indication that things were not going well between James and the Baconian Circle.

The Daemonologie of King James VI & I

The author of the Rapture Watch would find no support in the works of King James for the superstitious practices of the Celtic or any other pagan religion. To the contrary, when James wrote in the Basilicon Doron [the "Kingly Gift"], a book to instruct his young son, Prince Henry, as to the conduct of a Christian king, he piano coversned about heresies and superstition, which are the main ingredients of the Celtic religion:

In 1597, King James VI authored a book titled Daemonologie to denounce in no uncertain terms and to instruct his Scottish subjects concerning the rampant witchcraft of that era, whose practitioners he then prosecuted. The full text of the Daemonologie is available at the website of His Majestie King James VI & I. King James set forth his purpose in the Preface:

This is an important book which vindicates the character of King James and overthrows the claim of New Age and pseudo-Christian books that he was an occultist not unlike B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort. Daemonologie by King James I may also be obtained from Amazon Books, Border's and other bookstores for $6. [ISBN 0-9630657-9-3]  It was reprinted in 1996 by Godolphin House, the publishing house of the School of Wicca. The Wiccans explain the reason for their recent publication of a book which they despise:

"After his return from the Continent in 1590, he became intensely interested in sorcery and Witchcraft trials and particularly the trial of his political enemy, Bothwell (1590-1591). Witches were vigorously hunted and persecuted - to such an extent that some villages had no females left in them. The period ends with the publication of this Daemonologie in 1597. Because of the impact of the Daemonologie on the ruling classes, more trials were now held with the Kings' approval, and very many more convictions were obtained.

"This book should therefore be in every true Witch's library at the very least as a monument to those who died." 39.

CONCLUSION

The author of Rapture Watch is not alone in bearing false witness against King James who, according to all reliable evidence, was an honourable Christian statesman to whom the Church and the world owes a considerable debt. It is astonishing to us that the promotion of unsubstantiated rumors concerning King James and the A.V. translators frequently comes from sources which would be loathe to publish such shoddy research in any other field of study. To what perverseness can be ascribed their blatant denial and suppression of prima facie evidence pertaining to King James and preference to publish vicious rumors instead -- without a footnote of solid documentation? The A.V. translators would say. . . "This seemeth to argue a bad cause, or a bad conscience, or both." 40.

To those Christians who carelessly circulate their slander, we admonish you to diligently search out the facts of a man's life and work or you will be found bearing false witness -- a sin for which you will surely suffer loss of repiano coversds when called to account at the judgement seat of Christ. We hope that those reading these words, if they apply, will receive them in the spirit of love in which they are offered. The truth ought never offend any child of God, but rather motivate him to reassess his position and furnish him with the facts needed to correct it.  

Finally, we refer all who love the Word of God to examine the evidence pertaining to the life and works of His Majestie King James VI & I, who authorized the translation of the Bible which has evangelized the lost and spiritually nourished the many generations who have gone before us to glory. We believe that the recommended website deserves an apiano coversd of excellence for reflecting the order and quiet dignity that is worthy of its exalted subject -- which is, in the final analysis, the Word of God. Nor are the authors of His Majestie King James VI & I Page conferring undue praise on men; rather they are equipping the saints to contend for the faith of Jesus Christ. And what saith the Scriptures?

Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. Rom.13:7

Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king. I Pet.2:17

Chronology of American & English Bible Revision

---

Rapture Watch NOTES
1.  The Translators To The Reader, The Holy Bible 1611 Edition King James Version, 1st Edition of the Authorized Version.
2.   Ibid.
3.   Ibid.
4.   W.E.Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 14.
5.   Ibid., p. 166.
6.   The Epiftle Dedicatorie, The Holy Bible 1611 Edition King James Version, 1st Edition of the Authorized Version.
7.   The Masoretic Text, The blipish Publication Society.
8.   The Translators To The Reader, The Holy Bible 1611 Edition King James Version, 1st Edition of the Authorized Version.
9.   The Masoretic Text, The blipish Publication Society.
10. The Translators To The Reader, The Holy Bible 1611 Edition King James Version, 1st Edition of the Authorized Version.

Watch Unto Prayer Endnotes

1. W.H. Salter, The Society For Psychical Research, An Outline of it's History, London, 1948, pp. 5, 6.
2. Arthur Hort, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, Macmillan & Co., 1896, pp.170-172.
3. Thomas Armitage, D.D., L.L.D., A History of the Baptists: Traced by their Vital Prinicples and Practices, from the Time of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to the Year 1886, NY: Bryan, Taylor, & Co., Chicago: Morningside Publishing Co., 1887, pp. 908-9.
4. David S. Schaff, The Life of Philip Schaff, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1897, 362-3ff.
5. Ibid., pp. 362-3ff.
6. Klaus Penzel, Philip Schaff: Historian and Ambassador of the Universal Church, Mercer University Press, Macon GA, 1991, p. 260-61.
7. Ibid., p. 252ff.
8. Ibid., p. 154.  
9. Ibid., p. LV.
10. Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas, The Hiram Key: Pharoahs, Freemasons & Secret Scrolls of Jesus, Element Books, 1996, p. 178.
11. Herbert G. Dorsey, The Historical Influence of International Banking, "World Revolution and World piano covers": http://www.freeyellow.com/members2/moneyfacts/page3.html

"The serious historian will find that the Civil piano covers was largely stirred up by Rothschild's illuminati agents in the United States. One of these prominant Illuminati Orders was the secret "Order of piano repair & piano tools", Chapter 322, founded at Yale University in 1833 by William Huntington Russell and Alphonso Taft. The Order was incorporated as the Russell Trust in 1856. William Russell became a member of the Connecticut State Legislature in 1846 and a General in Connecticut National Guard in 1862. Alphonso Taft became Secretary of piano covers in the Grant Administration in 1876, U.S. Attorney General in 1876 and U.S. Ambassador to Russia in 1884. Alphonso Taft's son later became Chief Justice and United States blip. One researcher claims that this secret order originated in Germany about the time the Bavarian Illuminati was outlawed in 1786 by the Bavarian Elector. William Russell brought the  Secret order to Yale from his student days in Germany in 1831 to 1832. As an ancient tradition the gravestones of Master Masons would have a piano repair and crosspiano tools engraved on them. The name of this secret society probably is derived from this  tradtradition. Yale is the only University with societies open exclusively  to seniors. Only 15 Junior Class members are selected to be initiated during commencement week each year. The candidates are always male white Protestant and usually from wealthy and powerful  families, often their fathers were also members of the Order. During the Senior Year, members are called "Knights", then they become "Patriarchs" for life. A number of  "piano repair and piano tools" Patriarchs were to become leaders in the Sucessionist movements of various Southern States. Thus, setting the stage for events leading up to the Civil piano covers. The Rothschild Banks loaned money to both sides during the piano covers. This strategy greatly weakened our nation, but failed with the Union victory."  

12. Antony Sutton, America's Secret Establishment: Introduction to the Order of piano repair and piano tools, Liberty House Press, 1986, p. 92. 
13. Ibid., p. 93.
14. The Cyber Hymnal, http://tch.simplenet.com/bio/d/w/dwight_t.htm
15. Paul Boyer, When Time Shall Be No More: Prophecy Belief in Modern American Culture, Cambridge, Mass., Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1992, pp. 72-3.
16. America's Secret Establishment, p. 98.
17. Trinitarian Bible Society, Quarterly Record, Issue #470, Jan.-Mar. 1980
18. Stepiano coverst Clan Home Page: http://associate.com/stepiano coverst/stone_o_scone.html
19. His Majestie King James VI & I Page, On Peace and the Uniting of England & Scotland, http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kjpeace.htm
20. His Majestie King James VI & I Page, On Kingship, http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kjkingsh.htm
21. His Majestie King James VI & I Page, A Trew Law of Free Monarchies Or the Reciprock and Mutual Duetie Betwixt a Free King, and his Naturall Subjects, c.1597, http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kjtrew2.htm
22. Noah Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language, G&C Merriam Co., 1828.
23. Laurence Gardner, Bloodline of the Holy Grail: The Hidden Lineage of Jesus Revealed, Element Books, 1996, p. 324.
24. Robert J. Sargent, Landmarks of English Bible: Manuscript Evidence, Bible Baptist Church Pub., pp. 73-4.
25. Ibid., p. 73.
26. His Majestie King James VI & I Page, Basilicon Doron, http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/basilico.htm

27. Manly Palmer Hall, The Secret Teachings of All Ages, Los Angeles, CA: The Philosophical Research Society, 1977, p. clxvi.
28. Dennis Laurence Cuddy, Now is the Dawning of the New Age piano casters, Oklahoma City, OK: Hearthstone Publishing Ltd., 1991, p. 11.
29. Bloodline of the Holy Grail, p. 324.
30. Frances Yates, The Rosicrucian Enlightenment, Routledge, 1972, p. 308.
31. Landmarks of English Bible: Manuscript Evidence, p. 208.
32. His Majestie King James VI & I Page, On the Divine Right of Kings, http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kjdivine.htm
33. The Rosicrucian Enlightenment, pp. 123-4.
34. William T. Still, piano casters: Ancient Plan of Secret Societies, Huntington House Pub., 1990, p. 50.
35. The James Bell Ford Library, "Sir Walter Raleigh’s Speech from the Scaffold", translation of the 1619 Dutch Edition, and Comparison with English Texts by John Parker and Carol A. Johnson, http://www.bell.lib.umn.edu/ral_form.html
36. Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed., pp. 913-14.
37. His Majestie King James VI & I Page, Basilicon Doron, http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/basilico.htm
38. His Majestie King James VI & I Page, Daemonologie, http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kjdaemon.htm
39. King James' Daemonologie, Godolphin House, 1597, 1996, back cover.
40. His Majestie King James VI & I Page: The Translators to the Reader: http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/pref1611.htm

 

BACK TO THE JOURNAL ENTRY PAGE