Misquoting scripture for the political agenda

In my formative years, I can’t remember if it was my mother or father who told me that there are three things not discussed in polite company – politics, sex and religion.

To that, I would add money, as in how much we have.

Now, in the 2011 to 2019 period, we’re seeing a curious phenomenon – if you even try to introduce the topic of Muslims, let alone calling them invaders, you are somehow a member of the BUF, the BNP or the EDL, interchangeable terms in the eyes of the left – one recently tried to lump UKIP in with that.

At the same time, the left flatly deny there is such a thing as “leftwing” or else the old, “noble” left has been abandoned.

So many deny that there is a thing called satanic, despite the best efforts of Taylor Swift, Beyonce, Minaj and others to make damned sure youth does worship that entity.

Talk about Semiramis reborn  🙂

There is, not to put too fine a point on it, a sort of “disconnect”, a gap between what is insisted on, compared to what can readily be observed.

Feminazis, socialists and so on fling labels and then, in the next breath, insist that labels are wrong – there should be no labels.

Coming back to religion, that has been coming into the news lately too for all the wrong reasons. If it’s to go after paedo priests, it’s completely in order for anyone but to defend the Christian faith, ah no – not on.

Trouble is, the immigration issue and do-gooding leftwing “Christianity” are very much going on and many on our side of politics are not happy with how Official Churches are responding:

Hundreds of illegal immigrants have been released to churches throughout Scottsdale and Phoenix. The church has contacted my family and other parishioners asking for clothing and assistance before they’re given transportation to other states. Can’t believe this is happening.

And as you’ve seen at this and other sites already, there is smug sophistry being employed to quietly push it, from the Pope to Welby to Church “leaders” themselves who are trying to legitimise this illegality and sheer “wrongness” by misquoting convenient Bible passages to support the UN political agenda.

If the aim is for those who misuse the generic word “Religion” [as did Marx] to conflate what the Muslims are doing with what the Christian is exhorted not to do – then the plan is succeeding famously and naturally, the young are turning away in droves, abetted by leftist teachers and heads, backed by the new World Culture.

Let me say again that I was not raised in a particularly religious home, I did what most of the other kids did, we did not attend church and it wasn’t till later that I started to look at this thing for myself and came to the conclusions I have. But as I explained to a correspondent earlier, my background is scholastic in a general way, my approach comes from that and from the brainstorming method of meetings, trying on ideas rather than rubberstamping, all too rare in the corporate environment today, [so some of my colleagues explain].

And what I’m now being told is that the other side has most certainly got into Churches now, both nationally and locally – I was given some specific examples, of which Scottsdale and Phoenix are but two.

So I went ferreting and came up with these three:

1. Very pro-KJV:


2. Similar:


3. This not supporting the KJV:


This last one I found the most interesting, not for the text so much as for the comments, for example those by William Hutchins and Samuel R.

And certain things came out of it:

1. There is most certainly an attempt to alter the core meaning of certain passages, to negate concepts. I read apologists for revisionism and how they say that all translations are flawed. While KJV certainly had typos and other errors, the process by which it was written, including involving laity, was quite involved and exhaustive.

Note that I’m not even arguing religion here, I’m arguing a scholastic point – about historical texts. Some idiots try to say that the Bible is not a set of historical documents but if your definition of historical documents is documents found in history … well, I’ll not bother taking on this idiocy any further. To say that something is not historical because you disagree with what it says … well let’s just say that no genuine scholar would take that point of view – there’s an enormous barrow being pushed there, an enormous chip on the shoulder.

The example they were using in that comments thread was “virgin” and “young woman”. The example I use is the word “principalities” in the KJV in Eph 6:12, the very key to what we’re all up against. Modern “bibles” have changed it to mean those people in high places in the ruling class – Them in other words – but that’s not what principalities means in that verse.

First, the online meaning:

But it’s more than that – it was always seen very much in this way in Christian circles:

And if you start down that path, then you see just whom Them are working for and how impossible it is for Man on his own to oppose it.

But that conclusion is not allowed to get out – hence the changing of the core meaning in later versions of the “bible”.

And secular equivalents in politics abound, e.g. “fairness, tolerance and diversity”.

2. One must be very, very careful with the idea of someone who is a “Churchman”. In the C of E, that can mean a Synod pointy-hatter mouthing religious sounding things, having meetings where they corrupt something else and then pass it “down” to the paeons via Church missives.

Once they are sure the laity will agree, they open it up and “democratise” it.

3.  This last point introduces the whole notion of gnosis and a priesthood – the notion of a group of adepts above, keepers of the hidden knowledge [the concept is in Masonry as well] and only their words are scriptural, not yours.

It’s a man made folly and my N1 criticism of the Orthodox Church and its druidic-style priesthood. I’m not even going to start on the Roman Church and its sun symbolism.

Suffice it to say that keeping the Bible from the common people, e.g. chained to pulpits and written only in Latin – that is simply against the Founder’s concept of evangelism.

But the one who does translate into English or one’s local language – that person him or herself needs examining for what he or she is pushing – look at Vatican II.

4.  The concept of “safety” then arises – yes, the KJV has errors, yes it can be attacked, but it was the result, despite the political motives, for the best balance of interpretations of the original words to be generally available, hence its lasting popularity, despite its stilted language.

Of the four points just made, I see N2 as the most immediate issue in 2019/20 and it’s clear why.  If you accept that 2019 is going to be the start of a two year or more horribilis, then there are going to be many turning and seeking for the traditional remedy – save me, oh Lord.

However, if what they get in return is the mumbo jumbo of the satanic synod and corrupted vicar and wife, plus the paedo priesthood, whilst being anti-gay fascists in the eyes of the young, then the despairing will no longer turn to the Church, will they?  This is the whole idea and is in accord with Weishaupt’s maxims of 1776.

They will turn to Nanny State.

Not only that but there will be utter silence when Christians are cut down, as they are being right now in other nations, and vilified in this one.  No one will lift a finger or a voice in protest.

And that’s where we are right now.


Further reading via Chuckles:



09:39 Thursday the 10th

I just had a Twitter conversation with a friend from the US southern bible belt you might call it [this is the other friend] – they know their bibles pretty well in those parts – and I’ll just post it below here.

He had just quoted another verse and I’d replied: “Not too many of your style left, Ed.”

OK, read from the bottom up – Twitter do things upside down:

22 comments for “Misquoting scripture for the political agenda

  1. The Blocked Dwarf
    January 2, 2019 at 12:02

    Yesterday or the day before, I forget, there was a report on the German TV news of a German driving his car into crowds of mainly ‘foreigners’ . Shocking behaviour of course and as the Polizei didn’t shoot him he will no doubt, in the fullness of time, go down for a very long time and rightly so IMO.

    However what impressed me about the otherwise very ‘leftie’ German news was they referred to this horrible crime throughout their report as a “Crime against Foreigners” and NOT an ‘act of terrorism’. Contrast and compare….

    • January 2, 2019 at 12:10

      Choice of words, yes.

  2. dearieme
    January 2, 2019 at 15:39

    “King James”: bah! It was the Authorized Version when I was a lad, and with that I shall stick.

    Anyway, just declare that it is the only translation from the Hebrew and Greek that is divinely inspired, and then all debate is ended.

    Surely it is obvious to the meanest intellect that the various translations into Town Council English are not inspired, divinely or otherwise.

    • Wolfie
      January 2, 2019 at 18:39


    • January 3, 2019 at 01:51

      Anyway, just declare that it is the only translation from the Hebrew and Greek that is divinely inspired, and then all debate is ended.

      That’s the only viable option. No translation made by fallible human beings can ever be accurate, unless divinely inspired.

      But it’s not a claim the modern Church of England would ever make. Divinely inspired implies the existence of God, which is offensive to the many atheist Anglicans (such as the bishops).

  3. January 2, 2019 at 17:37

    In the days when Bibles were in Latin and chained to the pulpit, few of the people could read and the books were hand-written. By Monks in the main. They were hugely valuable, hense the security. Those ‘educated’ people that could read could read and speak Latin. And Greek. Educated English folk spoke both until well into the twentieth century.

    Gutenberg was a Catholic and one of the first of his enormous output was the Bible. The Catholic Douai- Rheims edition.

    The non-reading folk had pictures all around the walls of Churches. Telling of the tales they depicted was the main method of teaching the Faith.

    That the King James version was made by Committee is likely the problem with the translations into English. The D-R translations could have just as easily been put into English but it did give the Protestants the opportunity to change the meanings of verses, throw out verses and chapters, and even throw out books altogether. This added to ‘distancing’ themselves from the originators of the Bible. King James was a Catholic but even as King had to bow to protestant pressure and threat.

    The ‘language’ however has become part of our heritage.

    • The Blocked Dwarf
      January 2, 2019 at 23:14

      Pretty much what I was going to say when I finally got chance today to reply to this post properly.

      Dear Ol’ Wiki says it well…or rather doesn’t say it…: “As a result of the Hampton Court Conference of 1604, a new translation and compilation of approved books of the Bible was commissioned to resolve discrepancies among different translations then being used.”

      “to resolve discrepancies” there really isn’t anything more to say.

      It is ironic that one of worse Kings in British History -so bad people actually tried to blow him up-and whose misdeeds still cause us problems to this day (Yes Northern Ireland I’m looking at you)also somehow managed to give us the bible translation upon which a large part of our empire, culture and heritage was built.

      Personally I use the KJ whenever i need to quote the bible online or in casual conversation cos it SOUNDS like the bible should ;majestic, authoritative, the original recording from Mount Sinai. Most of the modern translations are hideous, there are more serious sounding pizza palour menus! I won’t have the NIV in the house-if you must have a bible translation for 4 year olds then stick with the Good News. But for serious stuff, where accuracy is important, I go for the hyperliteral translation(s) or if I need it in readable modern English then the New English Bible (the original NOT the politically ‘revised’ version) has never been surpassed as a modern accurate translation.

      • Robert the Biker
        January 3, 2019 at 20:03

        Also, Google ‘The Brick Testament’ for Bible stories done with Lego bricks.
        ‘Muhammeds Believe it or else’ is worth a look too.

    • dearieme
      January 3, 2019 at 00:55

      “King James was a Catholic”: oh come now. And if you can’t even get that right …..

  4. CherryPie
    January 3, 2019 at 02:08

    The original Old Testament texts were mainly written in Hebrew and Aramaic and the New Testament in Greek.

    All Bibles have been translated from these languages. The best translations are are those that are written with understanding of the original words when placed in their cultural context. Words cannot be literally translated from one culture to another.

    The translation into Latin was a great undertaking as was the commissioning and translation of the King James Bible. All translations have their limitations in translating the meaning of the original written texts.

    More modern exploration of the texts gives greater understanding of what was literally meant by the original texts. Deeper research is needed to understand the spiritual message that was delivered in the New Testament and its relationship to what initially seems like history in the Old Testament.

    A book was produced to coincide with an exhibition at the Bodleian and the Folger Shakespearean Libraries, Manifold Greatness: The Making of the King James Bible

    The book tells the story of the commissioning and translation of the King James version of the Bible.


  5. January 3, 2019 at 05:20

    The issue is not that “modern” revisionists were more accurate and faithful to the originals but they have taken liberties in altering the meaning along political lines.

    In 1611, the aim was still to praise God. “Modern” revisionists have been hellbent on “de-divinitising” Him. That is what those articles point out. Where there were missing originals or the meaning was unclear, in 1611, they would err towards a supernatural explanation, whereas these days, that err towards denial of that.

    Those “modern” theologians and the synods will pay for that in time. Meanwhile, great damage is done.

    The one in particular to be avoided is the NIV.

    • CherryPie
      January 3, 2019 at 23:53

      I read and cross refer different Bible translations. I find this leads to greater understanding of the various teachings within the Biblical texts including the teachings related in the New Testament.

      My readings include the NIV Bible. Within the NIV text I see many mentions of the Supernatural and no denial of it.

      I also see many Theologians debating the issue…

      The difference between the many translations I read is mainly (apart from better ability/understanding to translate the original text and portray the meaning of the text) that speech has changed over the years. The modern translations are more accessible to younger people and also people that were not brought up as Christians. These translations will lead those people to explore further.

      I have seen more controversial (not translations) writings of the Bible that have been written to encourage a particular Youth Culture/Cult Sector to come into the Christian Fold.

      God works through ‘people’ to share his teachings.

  6. Stewart Cowan
    January 4, 2019 at 06:32

    I was faced with the “Bibles are full of errors” nonsense recently. From what I have read, the KJV is so similar to the 2,000 year-old Dead Sea Scrolls that you could hardly put a cigarette paper between them (and obviously the KJV translators could not have been influenced by the DSS!).

    Modern translations are a different matter.

    I stopped going to church a few years ago and have since read the Bible for myself, not relying on clergy who know what they “know” because they learned it at their particular Bible college.

    The last Christmas I celebrated, I think, was 2011, then I realised that this has zilch to do with the true religion.

    Last Spring, I celebrated Passover for the first time and then the various autumn festivals, as I could not see from scripture that believers in the Messiah were to give them up.

    One of the interesting omissions from the NIV, which I also wouldn’t touch with a barge pole, regards Paul’s departure to Jerusalem in Acts 18:21:

    “But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem: but I will return again unto you, if God will. And he sailed from Ephesus.”

    The NIV and many others omit the *reason* why Paul had to leave. It is claimed that the NIV is based on older translations that the KJV, but would you trust ‘scripture’ published by Rupert Murdoch’s empire?

    The use of the phrase like “sexual relations” in the NIV sounds like the writers weren’t very inspired. Ghastly!

    • January 4, 2019 at 08:33

      Cheers, Stewart, my reading has led me to that conclusion too.

      • Stewart Cowan
        January 4, 2019 at 09:29

        I’ve been keeping the (seventh-day) Sabbath for the past few years, rather than Constantine’s “venerable day of the sun”.

    • The Blocked Dwarf
      January 4, 2019 at 10:05

      KJV is so similar to the 2,000 year-old Dead Sea Scrolls that you could hardly put a cigarette paper -SC

      Unfortunately the fact that the KJV does very well in comparison with the DSS says nothing about its rendering of the NT.

      • Stewart Cowan
        January 4, 2019 at 10:57

        True. I’m not so well versed on NT matters. Excuse the pun.

  7. Distant Relative
    January 4, 2019 at 11:26

    Of possible interest:


    [Pt.1] UNSEEN REALM SEMINAR w/ Dr. Michael S. Heiser: Supernatural Worldview of the O.T.

  8. January 4, 2019 at 12:05

    There’s so much wrong with this one below that it’s difficult to know where to start. Three parts in bold I’ll comment on further down.


    I mostly agree with Cherie, the changes in the bible are not always for sinister or Satanic reasons – language changes over time, so it’s updated to promote better understanding for younger people [1] or to reach out to people of different cultures or languages.

    However, even if it were your way, it’s being changed for political reasons, this is nothing new – the Christian bible has been mistranslated or “reinterpreted,” intentionally or not, for political reasons, since its inception.

    However, if you want to be purist about it, then Amfortas would be the closest, and I say that as a non-Catholic – but the Douay-Rheims is the oldest and “purest” version we have of the original Christian bible.

    In fact, removing portions of it as the “apocrypha” for reasons of “questionable authenticity” was an absurd excuse, considering no one had the technology nor the proper documentation methods to authenticate anything in the bible[2] was either authored by who they said it was or even happened already; thus, this was done clearly an excuse to remove books that didn’t match what they wanted to accomplish in terms of politics and power at the time, since church and state were not separate- particularly a society that was trying to stomp out both prior Catholicism in power and Judaism by law entirely in 1611 and force people to choose Protestant Christianity (or suffer the consequences) – not that Catholics and Jews didn’t do the same at some point in history.

    But even the Douay-Rheims can’t be verified authentic. In fact, even going back further to the Talmud, it would’ve been impossible for Moses to write the entire Pentateuch himself, it takes place over hundreds of years and it’s pretty obvious he didn’t consider the first five books are written in a different author’s voice.

    Regardless, for anyone – on either side politically – to proclaim that they are a “purist” and that only their interpretation is the “correct” one – especially just because it matches their own politics or what they already want to believe – is nothing short of human vanity and arrogance.

    We are then politicizing the bible ourselves, placing value on politics and what we want to believe above the word of God ourselves, shunning the parts we don’t like because they don’t match what we want, politically or otherwise, when in fact, Christ himself was apolitical other than to speak up for the oppressed to those who abused power in the church (because faith and law and power were combined then).

    And that is the point of the mystery and miracle of faith, that Christ’s message survived despite all of the edits, the mistranslations omissions, the retranslations, and the politics – and that is what is important, here, the message of the love and sacrifice of Christ – that is if you’re a true Christian.

    And let us not forget that they didn’t kill Christ because he was a conservative Old Testament law-keeper – they killed Christ because he wasn’t [3]

    Speaking of which, this is why I’m no longer evangelical – because they talk about the power of Satan, Satanists, and their fear of Satan more than they talk about the power of God.

    Who needs all those supposed female “Satanists” you mentioned when evangelicals spend so much time glorifying the power of Satan themselves?


    1. Better understanding for young people is the excuse trotted out for the leftization which constantly goes on – see previous links in which tht is very much the case. This is the whole point – it is nefarious, demonstrably so, part of the global left agenda.

    2. What bollocks. A Christian knows instantly if something is not right, if it militates against all the rest which has gone before. he doesn’t always know what is right but he knows what is not right. And that is why Christianity must be eliminated in Them’s eyes. They know Christians can see through them, whereas faux Christians do as those church billboards do – spout global left narrative.

    3. Christ was the most conservative person ever on earth. He was radical by definition, meaning getting back to the roots instead of being whited sepulchres, but he was there to fulfil the law, not to overturn it. Just as the left does today, the Ph and Sa had overturned the Word and had instituted pointy hatted claptrap, things which were never meant to be and they were emphasizing things not important whilst neglecting those which are.

    Precisely the case today with the invasion of the US. One side lies and cheats its way to the House and opposes security for the people, the other side are also traitors and oppose it – Ryan, McCain, Flake McConnell etc. the parallels are uncanny.

    The hegemony is global socialism, the high priests of it are the Bushes to the Pelosis, Kamala Harris slept her way to the top – the Deplorable s are the conservatives in the sense that they’re the ones trying to MAGA, the others – from the communists to the RINOs and CINOs – are trying to undo the country.

  9. CherryPie
    January 10, 2019 at 02:49

    I have reread Ephesians 6:12 to see if the different Bible translations refer to non worldly principalities.

    The KJV refers to powers in this world and those from the realm beyond:

    “12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”

    As does the Douay-Rheims:

    “12 For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places.”

    As does the RSV:

    “12 For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.”

    As does the NIV:

    “12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.”

    and the Good News Bible:

    “12 For we are not fighting against human beings but against the wicked spiritual forces in the heavenly world, the rulers, authorities, and cosmic powers of this dark age.”

    In all these translations the message is the same.

    • January 10, 2019 at 03:58

      The message is most certainly NOT the same. If it were, the controversy in the church would not exist. It does exist.

      The KJV refers to only Principalities as the rulers, they are otherworldly forces – as has been stated by all the quoted articles, emphasised in fact. This is what this whole thing is about, this is its core issue. KJV does NOT refer to worldly “powers”.

      Look at the words again:

      “against the rulers of the darkness of this world”

      Against the rulers of … of what?

      Of the darkness of the world. Rulers of, not ruled by the darkness of the world. Very, very specific words in the English language, used in that order.

      And who are these rulers? Who is doing the actual ruling? Principalities are. Fallen angels. In Paul’s understanding.

      And who is the leader of these Principalities. I shall not say the name but I refer to the same entity referred to by the Rolling Stones. Another clue is what the former UN Lucis Trust was first named after.

      The other versions have subtly let shifted the meaning so that it is misinterpreted for new Christians. This is doing Them’s work for Them, not understanding the malevolent intent behind the incremental changes, not understanding why the falling away.

      It is quite clearly NOT the same meaning. The NIV is the main culprit, inserting “authorities” and changing the wording so that it can be construed as just “bad people up top”.

      Look at what they have after the not of flesh and blood:

      “against the rulers, against the authorities”

      The whole point to the changes was to make the Bible more user friendly to new generations of the uneducated. And how do newcomers interpret “against the rulers, against the authorities”?

      As temporal of course, against the govt leaders, the rulers, the Mays and Merkels.

      The KJV does no such thing – it clearly states that it is otherworldly powers doing the ruling.

      The question many scribes have asked is why? Why change something which did not need changing? The KJV is quaint and difficult in places, but not in Ephesians 6:12. It was fine as it was. The only possible reason is to shift the meaning.

      Interesting though that having done so, NIV retains the not flesh and blood reference at the start, it’s then the insertion and change near the end which is central to the subterfuge, the sophistry.

      Yes, it does state the not flesh and blood, but then immediately negates it by how the uneducated would take “against the rulers, against the authorities”. There’s no need for the insertion.

      And the clincher is the “and also” before the last bit about spiritual. “And also.”

      This is the criticism of the NIV in but one place – there are so many others on other topics at the end of the links in the post.

      Also, I used the terms “safe” and “unsafe”. The NIV is unsafe and the question still remains – why did they do it, the authors?


      Where does someone like Merkel fit into all this? Merkel is beholden to Bertelsmann who pushed parent toddler incest [posts passim]. They are in thrall to the Thule. Merkel was communist and still is, but in the same guise that Kim Philby was.

      Is she one of these fallen angels? Who knows, she is doing the work of the hidden hand. She appears to just be one of the henchmen, like May and as the Bushes were.

  10. January 10, 2019 at 09:45

    Ladies and gentlemen, I’ve just inserted a section in the post proper, at the end, beginning 09:39 Thursday the 10th.

Comments are closed.