Quote:

---

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

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

---

Quote:

---

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

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

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ZAROVE:
I hate to break it to you all but, just like the Similarities between Jesus and Horus, or the claim that the Creation account in Genesis is referring to a Plurality of gods, this is actually a hoax.


King James didn't intentionally mistranslate the Bible in order to persecute Witches, and the word used can't possibly be Poisoner.

For one thing, if this was all because James feared Magic, and he is the original reason why the word "Witch" is found in our Bibles, why is the same word used in the Coverdale Bible in the same place in 1535? This is 31 years before James Stuart was born.

Coverdale Exodus 22:18 Thou shalt not suffre a witch to lyue.


Its also in the Geneva Bible, of 1587, and the bishops Bible of 1568.

Geneva-Exo 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to liue.

Bishops- Exo 22:18 (22:17) Thou shalt not suffer a witche to lyue.

Both of those Bibles where translated before James Ascended the Throne, and the Geneva Bible in the Reign of Queen Mary, who had begun a brutal purge of Protestants, causing several to flee to Geneva, Switzerland, where it was produced. (Hence the name)

The Bishops Bible was produced in England after the Ascension of Queen Elizabeth the First.


Even the Wycliffe Bible of 1395 says Witch! It just renders the word a plural.


Wycliffe 1395-Exodus 22:18 Thou schalt not suffre witchis to lyue.

The Latin Vulgate follows suit, and in fact Wycliffe's was translated from it.

Its hard to believe James Stuart was able to corrupt those Bibles long before he was Born, or those composed shortly after his Birth, or before his reign.

So, the claim that James was fearful of Magic and thus sought to Alter the Bible to reflect his fear of Witches, and to legitimise it, just doesn't stand up.

Then theres the Question of rather its even a Mistranslation.

For that, we look to the Hebrew.

The word in the Hebrew is Kashaph, which means "Witch" or "One who practices the black arts". It doesn't mean "Poisoner", and in fact it wouldn't make sense to think it did, since the same word is used in Daniel 2:2, and if it means Poisoner, and not "Witch" (Its actually translated as "Sorcerer" in this passage of Daniel in the KJV) how then do we explain the following?

From the KJV.

1. And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams, wherewith his spirit was troubled, and his sleep brake from him.
2. Then the king commanded to call the magicians, and the astrologers, and the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans, for to shew the king his dreams. So they came and stood before the king.

If you modify it to make Kashaph mean "Poisoner" you get a strange reading.

1. And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams, wherewith his spirit was troubled, and his sleep brake from him.
2. Then the king commanded to call the magicians, and the astrologers, and the poisoners, and the Chaldeans, for to shew the king his dreams. So they came and stood before the king.

Why would Nebuchadnezzar summon poisoners to discern the meaning of his dreams?

I'm sorry but, the idea that the King James Bible deliberatively mistranslated the Bible in order to give a basis for the persecution of women as Witches is just daft.

In fact, even the Sexism of the day is overstated, and women did have rights in Jacobean Britain.

Don't believe everything you hear about the "Real History of Christianity", much of it is simply a repetition of old Urban legends that lack any real credibility.

Be a little more Skeptical.

---

Quote:

---

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

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ZAROVE:
Also, to your question.

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

---

Quote:

---

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

---