IN> Buying The Stairway To Heaven...

[Randy Finder, SAINT Corporation]

>> >Good ol' King James put out his translation with the word 'witch' in
>> this >sentence because he had a phobia about them, and things have
gone
>> downhill >from there.
>> 
>> Any proof here? The major protestant translations of the Bible into
>> English prior to the KJV are Tyndale's and the Coverdale and *both*
of
>> them use witch.
>> (http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/tyndale/Tyndale.pdf) and
>> (http://lookhigher.net/englishbibles/coverdalebible/exodus.html).  In
>> fact at http://lookhigher.net/ , I can't find any English translation
>> prior to the KJV that use any word other than witch and older forms
of
>> the word such as witchis. 

>How 'bout here?
>http://users.adelphia.net/~megastulmt/coven_christopagan_lessons_week_1
0.htm

>The top section discusses the phrases "witchcraft" and "sorcery", as
well >as the connotations thereof.

The question becomes whether or not the terms witch and sorcerer had any
difference at all to a 15th century person. Given that the term witch
had a negative term all the way back to the 9th century (See
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/witch , especially the Online
Etymology dictionary entry), I think it more likely that witch being a
neutral term as opposed to the negative term sorcery dates to only the
last two hundred years. I'd be fascinated to any significant cultural
reference at all to a "Good Witch" before the Wizard of Oz.

  
>The sections down toward the middle also discuss differences between
Greek >and English grammar and how they can be accurate but not
necessarily >correct (or vice versa).

Traduttore tradittore" (translator, traitor) Not disputing that. However
by the time that the KJV was done, Exodus would have been translated
from Ancient Hebrew to Aramaic to Greek to Latin (to French in some of
their reference works) to English. I'm frankly surprised that some
things survive at all. Yes, the original Hebrew may be closer to
poisoner. That has *nothing* to do with any Phobia held by King James.


>> I'm not disputing that there may be a better translation of Exodus
22:18
>> into English, but King James (who only approved the work on the KJV
>> rather than doing any translation himself) certainly didn't change
the
>> translation of the word in scripture. 

>I would submit that the phrase "approved the work" would mean the same
as >"editing" in modern parlance, and given what we know about His Royal
>Highnessness, it would probably be more accurate to call it
"censoring".

Uh-huh. Every previous bible he has read in English uses the term witch
and he is supposed to a censor for having that word in the version that
the best bible scholars of his day produced? Or is he supposed to have
gone to the Jews of the time and asked them for their own translation?

Describing James I as a censor is *almost* humorous. This is the man who
was King immediately after Elizabeth during whose reign William
Shakespeare, John Donne, Ben Jonson, and Sir Francis Bacon wrote? He
also is probably the most significant author of any of the Kings on the
British Isles having several books of literature including the Basilikon
Doron,a three volume work on guidelines to be an efficient monarch.




>Possibly, possibly. I can't recall my particular sources off the top of
my >head, but I do recall that there was a distinct cultural difference
between >a 'village wise-woman' who knew about herbal cures and
medicines, and a >'witch' who focused on what we would call the 'dark
side' of herbalism >(covering poisons, hallucinogens, and the like).
This wise-woman if she was smart was the village midwife.


>And while I can't argue with the recorded facts (the actual number of
witch >trials held at such-and-such a time), I can suggest that 'safer'
might be >the wrong word. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say
'harder to find a >person of either gender who could be caught
practicing witchcraft or >sorcery', since a lot of folk had been killed
under those charges. The ones >who didn't get caught would definitely
learn to keep a low profile, >especially when it became culturally
acceptable to generally mistreat >someone who wouldn't or couldn't
defend themselves.

When was it ever *not* culturally acceptable to generally mistreat
someone who wouldn't or couldn't defend themselves. Was there ever a
"golden age" for witchcraft more than 100 years ago?

>> And to move this back toward IN. The Demon of Bible Translations
>> probably is a Habbalite of Malphas, at least a Marquis (and may be a
>> Count) and has at least 9-10 word forces.

><heh> Definitely. Given that the Fall itself was precipitated by
Lucifer >mis-interpreting God's Word and Will, it seems to be in Hell's
best >interest to distort mortal records of both.

True. And perhaps *that* was the issue was with the Garden of Eden. Any
attempt to give God's Laws to Adam and Eve must have involved
translation from Angelic to a Mortal Tongue. The job must have fallen to
the Archangel of Light as the one best able to describe them. And the
job of translation must have been impossible without some sort of lie
given the limitations of a Mortal tongue.


>> Conversely, I think the Angel of Bible Translations is a Mercurian of
> Yves with fewer word forces...

>Though it is clear that said Mercurian has several schemes for
error->correction that don't involve Archangels dropping in on unlikely
folk for a >chat; i.e. the Nag Hammadi Library.

Tether to revelations anyone...


>And given that folk who practice traditional herbalism show the kind of
>respect for all forms of vegetation that Novalis probably doesn't see
>anywhere else, she may well have a soft spot for pagans. Likewise,
shamans >may be some of the very few humans that Jordi will actually
deal with on a >regular basis...

True.