My Epitaph

If you don't question everything, you will know nothing and believe anything!

Monday, January 27, 2014

My Ideal for Bible Study


The reading room on the fourth floor of the Newberry Library would allow me four Bibles from their vault at any one time.  I first examined the 19 Bibles in English between the first English language Bible published in 1535, known as the Coverdale Bible, through the 1611 translation that was "authorized" by King James I (James VI of Scotland).  After reviewing these translations, I settled on the Coverdale Bible of 1535, the Geneva Bible of 1560, the Vatican's "authorized" translations: 1582's Rhemes New Testament and 1610's Douay Old Testament, and the 1611 translation "authorized" by King James as the four Bibles I would study.

Whenever I would finish a book near the end of the week, I would spend some time immersed in Bible study to finish the week.  I had done this at the Lilly Library, in the months before the fall I spent at the Newberry, but they would only give me one at a time, instead of four.  I am not Catholic, nor am I a royalist, nor was I raised Anglican.  I had already read the articles in the pre-WWI Catholic Encyclopedia (and, for a blatantly biased source, they have the most neutral of tones ... I have far greater respect for the "Catholic Encyclopedia" over the 1967 "New Catholic Encyclopedia" or its "Revised and Updated" version of 2002) about Henry VIII, who had his portrait inside the front cover of that 1535 "Coverdale" Bible as to whom the Bible was dedicated.  His contemporary at the Vatican, who wouldn't let him get divorced, so he had to kill his wives that couldn't bear him a son, was a member of the Medici family: Pope Leo X.  So, when I opened the first Bible printed in English and saw Henry VIII's face on the "dedication" page, I knew to take it with a grain of salt because it obviously had an agenda of supporting the "divine rights of kings" over the "authenticity" of the Vatican's brand of Catholicism.


The Catholic Rhemes New Testament begins with about 25 pages where it is explained that the translations into the "vulgar" tongues like English (hence "Vulgate") was necessary to "correct all heresies" that had been published by the Anglican versions, which, seeing as how their first page was a portrait to the reigning monarch, that also happened to be the "pope" of the Anglican church, the critical thinker should be able to ascertain what the most important parts to the Biblical narrative are when discovering verses where there are distinct contradictions between the Anglican agenda's translations/"heresies" and the Vatican's agenda of remaining the dominant interpretation and translation of all things "Christian".  Especially when considering the similarities to both agendas: like the controlling of the human flock/herd with mental fences placed over a largely illiterate populace.  Even the first Bibles published in English were "pulpit" Bibles where most in the congregation still didn't know how to read, and the costs limited purchasing to be either of local parishes or of the aristocracy and nobility.  This is most certainly true of the 1611 KJV.  Some families could afford to have copies, certainly, but if they wanted to take it to church with them, they would have servants/slaves carry it for them instead of carrying it themselves where none of those that would burden that load could read it, let alone afford their own copy.

My Bible study at the Newberry settled in to what I had been using at the Lilly,and I tried to exercise the highest scrutiny I could at dissecting the competing agendas behind each translation.  Most were among the Anglican agenda, with only one translation of both testaments sanctioned by the Vatican.  The impact the Christian Bible has had over the past 1700 years (when it was codified in 325 A.D. at Nicea) seems to indicate that there might be some great and powerful secrets concealed under the literal stories, and more literal where parable is being used.  The Bible seems to resonate at a subconscious level with our DNA, and this is why it has had the impact in the world it has, albeit too much of that impact has been to the detriment of mankind.  Of my few beliefs ("If you don't question everything, you will know nothing and believe anything" remains my epitaph), other than the kinetic state of human potential is genius, would be that all humans have an innate ability to heal others.  Unfortunately, it seems that too many of us misread the data and try to pat them on their dislocated shoulder, or kick them in a sprained ankle ... it seems like we can pick up the data beyond our senses and can be drawn to the injury, but being out of tune with how to heal each other, we can be drawn to the wounded region in the wrong ways.  (Had my mother not been quick enough to stop by elementary school principal, he would have patted the shoulder I was in the ER to have seen, and I did have someone in church youth group come up and kick my sprained ankle.  Neither were the type to maliciously kick you when you're down, so I take those incidents as evidence of a latent ability to recognize where others are suffering common to all humanity.)

If anyone of you, dear readers, ever have the opportunity to sit in a reading room of a rare book library, please make sure you know where the etymology dictionary is on the shelf if you are reading English from a different era, like that in the early English translations of the Bible.  However, there are also some different accent marks that were used then that aren't used today that I have yet to find discussed in a reference source like an etymology dictionary.  In another book in the same English, an Anglican book, published in the 1660s, naming the Vatican as the city of the anti-Christ's reign and not a literal "Jerusalem" as the Book of Revelations states, I have seen the same accent mark used to designate a double consonant on multiple words, and multiple sets of consonants, and not just the double "nn" of "Sonne".

However, both Anglican and Catholic versions of the Bible concur that Iesvs (before English had "J" and "U") was the "Sonne" of God and the "Sonne" of Man.  The 1560 Geneva Bible uses the above mentioned accent mark also used a century later to signify a duplicated letter - usually with the intent of abbreviating to get the word on that line, back when typesetting was labor intensive and space was costly.  This also appears to be what the use of this diacritical/accent mark was used in the 1560 Geneva Bible.  Any good etymology dictionary will clearly indicate that the modern English word "sun" has its origins in "sonne" and that the roots for a male offspring are "sone" WITHOUT the accent mark used in the 1560 Geneva Bible (even though those accent marks are only used for the "of man" and agrees with the others about being the "Sonne of God").  When read from a pulpit to a largely illiterate congregation, the reader may know he was reading the word for that orb 93 million miles away, but does that mean those hearing the reader's reading are thinking of that "Sonne" when they hear the story being told?

However, don't take this as an invitation to go running off an believing the Zeitgeist crowd of believers that Jesus was just another "Sun God" because that would be falling into the planned trap of literal belief when a deeper meaning was really intended.  Some of the best evidence to these deeper meanings come from passages "fought" over in the different translations: where the "Vulgate" was published to "correct all heresies".  By scrutinizing the agendas to both sources, especially the similarity in constructing mental fences for the human herd to be controlled easily, but this also requires a minimal comprehension of the "occult sciences" and why "man" is the measure to relate the microcosm to the macrocosm: as above, so below.  We can even see Iesvs make use of the Hermetic axiom when he states "on earth as it is in heaven" in "the Lord's Prayer," for what does this really say if not the "as below so above" aspect of the Hermetic axiom?



So, lets just examine two verses, that are identical, that the Vatican felt had to be corrected from being heretical and see how this slight variation in translation can reveal much of what has been concealed, or occulted.  Then, we will examine another verse that reveals the validity of how each translation was pursuing an agenda of controlling the masses. The verses in question that demonstrate gnosis of "occult anatomy" are Matthew 6:22 and Luke 11:34.  (Note: the 1535 Coverdale did not have verse numbers.)

Coverdale Bible, 1535:
"The eye is the light of the body.  Yf thyne eye then be single, all thy body shal be ful of light:"
Geneva Bible, 1560:
"The light of the body is the eye: if thine eye be single, thy whole bodie shal be light."
Bishop's Bible, 1568:
"The lyght of the body is the eye.  Wherefore, yf thyne eye be Single, all thy body shal be full of lyght."
King James' "authorized" Bible, 1611:
 "The Light of the body is the eye: If therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shal be full of light."
Before citing the Vatican's sanctioned translation, "to correct all heresies," let's first make sure we know exactly what is being said in the above verse, which is repeated by Luke 11:34.  Please pay close attention to the fact that "eye" is what every verse states, and none of them state the plural "eyes".  This seems perfectly confirmed when we then read about how the body becomes filled "with light" if we are able to keep our eye as "single".  Passages like these sure seem to indicate that Iesvs had been initiated into the Egyptian Mystery School teachings concerning what they called the Light Body, with telling how to have your body become filled with "light".  Before we get much further into this discussion, let's see what was published to correct the above heresy.

Rhemes New Testament, 1583:
"The candel of thy body is thine eye.  If thine eye be Simple thy vvhole body shal be lightsome. (23) But, if thine eye be naught: the vvhole body shal be darksome."
We can see slight differences in translation in the above passage; however, the gist remains the same.  Although the Catholic version translates keeping thine eye to be "simple", it does concur that we are only discussing "eye" and not the plural of "eyes" and that this singular use of "eye" is directly related to having the body becoming "lightsome" which seems to state the same as "being filled with light".  I have yet to find exactly which translation began to alter these passages, but many modern Bibles do not convey the same meaning.  It seems to have been related to the Darby and Scofield agendas, as it seems most prevalent among the Christian Fundamentalists that are directly descended from Darby and Scofield with such absurd beliefs as the world was created in October 4004 BC and the belief of a rapture that never existed before Darby initiated the idea and Scofield caught that "hail mary" pass and turned it into a touchdown.  Some new translations change the single eye to being plural and then make statements about the whole body being clean, instead of filling up with light, or becoming lightsome.  It appears as though these changes were made around the 1880s, which would also seem to be part of an agenda to keep modern man from recognizing what these verses mean concerning the Biblical narrative because of the very information that had made the 19th Century be a mini-renaissance until countered to keep the masses dumb and controllable, beginning with Darby's translation and huge monetary backing to influence seminaries across the USA.

Another passage that the competing agendas were very telling was Romans 13.
"Subjection, and many other dueties wee owe to the Magistrates ... the Powers that be are ordained by God." KJV 1611
"Let every soul be subject to higher powers for there is no power but of God, and those that are of God are ordained." Rhemes NT 1582
"The obedience to the Rulers ... the powers that be are ordained by God" Geneva 1560 
It should be very telling that the Anglican versions demand "subjection" and "obedience" among other "dueties" owed to Magistrates and the Powers that be being ordained by God.  The subjects of the king or queen had to, of course, submit and obey those born to "better" bloodlines because of the "divine rights of kings".  However, the Vatican's efforts to "correct all heresies" demands subjection to ecclesiastical powers ordained by God.  If I were a Catholic, I might be conditioned into accepting the "ordained" powers of church hierarchy.  Had I been born a subject of a royal house, I probably would have been conditioned to accept my obedience to Rulers and Magistrates.  However, I was conditioned as an American, where I don't have to submit to any government, without due process, and wasn't raised Catholic.

Can anyone else see the competing agendas between secular Magistrates, Rulers and Powers that be, in the Bibles dedicated to the reigning monarch of Great Britain, and that of the Vatican in their translation which would demand the same obedience to the clergy and hierarchy being directly ordained by God, even when they disagreed with the royalty you were born under because the church, which was ordained, doesn't ordain a secular ruler.  Being the freedom, liberty, equality, evolutionary kind of guy I am, I don't feel the need to submit to any secular or religious "authority".  Especially when the rulers both these "authorities" serve want you to never figure out why Matthew 6:22 and Luke 11:34 had to be changed when the "secrets" of that parable were becoming known in the west after the cracking of the Rosetta Stone, Blavatsky's books and her Theosophical Society bring eastern occult sciences to the west, and that heretical amateur archaeologist, French Freemason Augustus le Plongeon who found Atlantis is the Yucatan as he spent just over a decade excavating, developing 3D photography, and learning the still living, at that time, Mayan tongue.  Maybe his heresies came from having learned the living language of the Mayan that none of the academic archaeologists that never spent one season, let alone about a dozen years fully immersed with a passion.

Can you see different agendas in each translation?  Is there a fundamental difference if the body fills with light or gets lightsome?  Maybe enough to occult what had been revealed by the Anglican heretics from the illiterate Catholics in the English speaking world, and the changing from a single eye to a simple eye, does that do much, again, other than try to obscure, again, what was too close to being revealed across the English Channel. Is there anything as heretical to most modern believers in Jesus, whether Catholic of not, as knowing that these verses are discussing the fabled "third eye" of the Hindus and Buddhists, and depicted with the uraeus on the Pharaoh's forehead of his golden casket?  Especially when the verse truly seems to convey the Egyptian notion of a Light Body, which was finally seeing the light of modern man thanks to Champollion's genius in the first half of the 19th Century, those wanting to keep mankind from knowing, and activating our latent Light Bodies set out to pervert these verses, and infiltrated/started the seminaries that would teach the preachers with such works as Darby's Dispensationalism and the Scofield Reference Bible.  The ancient world seems to all have known about what is today most called the kundalini.  This is the knowledge occulted under the literal stories of the Bible to preserve it through dark ages until man could be intelligent and wise enough to relearn how to read the Bible - as an instruction book to super powers.

I'm sure I will return to the the things I've learned from my ideal of Bible study some point in the future, but I trust you can see why I'm not the most popular person among a crowd of churchgoers that insist on pursuing conversations I know will only lead to their being offended when I had no intent or desire to have a conversation that would lead to their being offended.  I know I'm a heretic, why can't some people realize when I say "I don't want to have that conversation right now" that I am trying to do them a favor?  And, then they get a look of such horror I see flames between me and them, like they could still burn me for being a heretic, or maybe they have done so in a past life.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...