By Dr. J. Coleman

My approach to the King James BIble takes me over this ice, for most Christians believe the present Bible and all of the latest translations (spin-offs of the King James version) to be infallible.  In the search for truth, one must often take the risk of offending others, although, as always, there is no intention of doing so and no offense is meant.

Great problems have been caused by the "infallibility" attitude.  Did the Pilgrims carry a King James Bible with them?  Did John Bunyan, Martin Luther read the King James Bible?  The answer is that they did not.  The Bible they used was the Geneva Bible, published in 1560.  A careful study of the King James Bible leads to the conclusion that it is more a government of King James document than a Bible.

This stems from King James being a real hard believer in "the divine right of kings".  A little of the history of King James should cause all open-minded scholars to have second thoughts about the infallibility of the King James Bible.  King James was the son of Mary Stuart, who ingrained "divine right of kings" into her son.  Obviously, in a short work such as this, I can only skim through her and her son's history.

Why did King Henry, Mary's husband, drag her secretary, an Italian casanova by the name of David Rizzo from the supper table and summarily have him murdered?  According to some obscure records in the British Museum, Henry strongly suspected that Mary was having a sexual liaison with Rizzo.  This was based upon evidence presented to him by some of his Scottish nobels.  It would not have been her "first time" for she definitely "had an affair"--to use modern vernacular, with the Earl of Bothwell.

Mary taught her son, who may have been the offspring of her union with David Rizzo, that he ruled by the power of God handed down directly to him.  Why is this important?  Because if it were true, then James needed only answer to God and totally ignore the wishes of his subjects.  From such conceptions tyranny soon raises its ugly head.

King James abhorred the Geneva Bible because it disputed the "divine right of kings" and because of notes gainsaying this, inserted in the margins by John Knox.  During the time of James, religion was controlled by governments.  This is still true today in such countries as Denmark, where the Lutheran Church is the official government church and priest's salaries are paid by the state.  Although Denmark is more enlightened and does not punish those who disagree with the Lutheran Church, King James on the other hand had such "heretics" burned at the stake or beheaded.

In spite of his murderous behavior, the introduction to the King James Bible refers to "Good King James".  Well, a rampant homosexual, which James was, and one who beheaded his subjects who did not subscribe to his "divine right of kings", is not a good man, at least in my opinion.  His other ugly habits, besides murder and sodomy, (history shows that his preference was for young boys, which his Venetian backers capitalized on), was rolling in the blood of animals he killed on hunts.  King James was also a vicious sadist.  He delighted in personally attending to "witches" punishment in which he sometimes took part.  These are matters of record, which can be found in the British Museum.

No sooner had James ascended the throne than he was approached by a group of Venetian Byzantine financiers who desired the Geneva Bible to be rewritten.  King James was only too pleased to comply with their request, which they backed up with sexual favours and gold, as he hated the Geneva Bible.  His "version" was completed in 1611 and only about 25% of the Geneva Bible was retained in it.

The so-called translators, knowing full well the sadistic, murderous, blood-lusting character of their king, would not have dared to include anything from the Geneva Bible that would have offended James.  In actual fact, there was no revision of the Geneva Bible.  What the "translators" did was copy William Tyndale's 1525 New Testament and "modify" it to suit the king and his pipers.

One of the most profound changes occurred in Genesis 12:3, in which the King James Bible appears to teach that the Jews are the seed of Abraham, whereas the Geneva Bible makes it perfectly clear that they are not.  Another big change is found regarding the person of Satan, who is described in the Geneva Bible as simply "the adversary".

There were so many changes made to the original Bibles, Tyndale's 1525 New Testament and the Geneva Bible, that it is safe to conclude that the King James Bible represents only about 25% of original truth.  After the Venetian bankers had finished with it, through bribery and corruption, sexual deviate favours for King James, deliberate omissions, a well-grounded fear of bringing down the wrath of the king upon the heads of the "translators", and alterations to key texts, the King James Bible was severely compromised.

It is no wonder that we are in the state we are in today, when 90% of Christian churches teach the Venetian Khazarian fable that the Jews are God's chosen people to be revered and protected, and that Jesus Himself was a Jew, as found in the pages of the King James Bible.

Source:  THE PHOENIX EXPRESS, October 1991, Volume 16, Number 13, Pages 12-13.

http://www.phoenixarchives.com/liberator/1991/1091/16-13.pdf

Transcribed into HTML format by R. Montana.