Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Holder, Issa Spar Over "Fast and Furious"

WRITTEN BY RAVEN CLABOUGH
WEDNESDAY, 12 OCTOBER 2011 00:00

The controversy surrounding the disastrous Operation Fast and Furious (part of Project Gunrunner) has prompted a congressional investigation which is quickly heating up as more facts emerge. The investigation has led Congress to question Attorney General Eric Holder as to how much he knew of the operation, and how long he was sitting on the knowledge that known Mexican drug cartel members were permitted by the officials of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (still known as ATF) to walk with weapons provided by the ATF. The inquiry has resulted in an exchange of scathing letters between Holder and the investigation head, House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif., left).

Operation Fast and Furious was launched in 2009 in an effort to target major gunrunners. The stated plan was to follow gun purchasers in the hopes that the suspects would lead the ATF to major heads of Mexican cartels. Unfortunately, some of those same deadly weapons were found at crime scenes in both Mexico and the United States, and were involved in the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry last year.

Attorney General Holder has done his best to distance himself from the failed gunwalking operation. However, one week ago, Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), a ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, distributed five separate memos from July and August of 2010 addressed to Holder, which cite Operation Fast and Furious by name. The documents implicate Holder, proving he likely knew about the program for at least a year.

Republicans contend that memos prove what they have been saying all along: that Holder was aware of Operation Fast and Furious sooner than he indicated. The accusations prompted the Attorney General to ventilate in a scathing letter to Issa and other Republicans, accusing them of “irresponsible and inflammatory rhetoric.”

In his letter, Holder insisted:

I have no recollection of knowing about "Fast and Furious" or of hearing its name prior to the public controversy about it. Prior to early 2011, I certainly never knew about the tactics employed in the operation.

Issa contends, however, that after the release of the memos last week, Holder’s assertions are simply unbelievable. According to Issa, Holder “has failed to give Congress and the American people an honest account of what he and others knew about gun-walking and Operation Fast and Furious.” Issa called Holder’s lack of honesty “deeply disturbing.”

"If Attorney General Holder had said these things five months ago when Congress asked him about 'Operation Fast and Furious,' it might have been more believable," House Oversight Committee spokesman Frederick Hill remarked, adding, "At this point, however, it's hard to take at face value a defense that is factually questionable, entirely self-serving, and a still incomplete account of what senior Justice Department officials knew about gun walking."

Holder’s letter provoked an equally biting letter to the Attorney General from Issa which declared in part:

The current paper trail … creates the strong perception that your statement in front of Congress was less than truthful. Your staff … was certainly aware of "Fast and Furious" over a year ago.

Issa’s letter offered specifics, including the following:

Gary Grindler, the then-Deputy Attorney General and currently your chief of staff, received an extremely detailed briefing on "Operation Fast and Furious" on March 12, 2010. In this briefing, Grindler learned such minutiae as the number of times that Uriel Patino, a straw purchaser on food stamps who ultimately acquired 720 firearms, went in to a cooperating gun store and the amount of guns that he had bought. When former Acting ATF Director Ken Melson, a career federal prosecutor, learned similar information, he became sick to his stomach.

Pointing to such data as this, Issa is convinced that there was “widespread knowledge” within the Justice Department’s “senior ranks” that “gunwalking [was] occurring.” Issa’s letter accuses Holder of attempting to “shift blame” and “hide behind [his staff] for failing to inform you about Operation Fast and Furious when they reviewed the memos sent to you last summer,”

Issa continued:

Your letter ... did little but obfuscate, shift blame, berate, and attempt to change the topic away from the department's responsibility in the creation, implementation, and authorization of this reckless program. You claim that, after months of silence, you "must now address these issues" over Fast and Furious because of the harmful discourse of the past few days. Yet, the only major development of these past few days has been the release of multiple documents showing that you and your senior staff had been briefed, on numerous occasions, about "Fast and Furious."

It simply is not believable that you were not briefed on Fast and Furious until a few weeks before your testimony. At the very least, you should have known about Fast and Furious well before then.

Appearing on Fox and Friends, Issa asserted,

[Holder] wants us to believe that he came to a hearing, having read about some terrible allegations [and] only having just learned of it, and not asking any additional questions, at least the ones in his weekly briefings, that if he read his weekly briefings, he would have known about what he now says he didn’t know.

Justice Department officials continue to insist that they have in fact been cooperative in the investigation, and will continue to be. A Department spokeswoman stated, “The department will continue to cooperate with both the inspector general and congressional investigations. In the meantime, what the American people deserve is less partisan showboating and more responsible solutions to stopping gun violence.”

Issa has indicated that he will be sending a new set of subpoenas to the Justice Department in order to seek further information.

Photo: Rep. Darrell Issa



Source


Could the detail be from the devil? Bachmann: Turn 9-9-9 Upside Down...

OCTOBER 11, 2011

Could the detail be from the devil?



In one of the more entertaining moments of tonight's less-than-scintillating debate, Michele Bachmann joked about looking at Herman Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan in a mirror and seeing 6-6-6. She further quipped that "the Devil's in the details" in Cain's plan, and it simply isn't viable, Bachmann insisted.

In a dig at the upstart candidate who has never held an elective office, Bachmann said Cain's proposal isn't a jobs plan -- it's a tax plan.

Cain is a businessman who once headed Godfather's Pizza. He was much more in the spotlight in tonight's Republican presidential debate, partly because Texas Gov. Rick Perry was much less of a center-of-attention than he was in his earlier debates. Perry has since fallen in most national polls.

-- John Gravois

Posted at 08:36 PM


http://blogs.star-telegram.com/politex/2011/10/could-the-detail-be-from-the-devil.html

Related:

Bachmann: Turn 9-9-9 Upside Down...



Michele Bachmann warned that Herman Cain’s “9-9-9” plan, and its included sales tax, could lead to persistent rising taxes for future generations.

“You turn the 9-9-9 plan upside down, and the devil’s in the details,” Bachmann said — a possible reference to the numbers 666!

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/updates


Occupy Wall Street, The Golden Calf and the New Idolatry

Donna Schaper
Senior Minister, Judson Memorial Church, Judson.org


Posted: 10/11/11 01:19 PM ET

When the paper Mache golden calf arrived at the church, it looked ever so much like the Wall Street Bull. I am not secretly cursing. The calf animal looked like a bull animal. Our choir director and one of our ministers carried it on their shoulders, from its rented van up Thompson Street, from Houston Street, into Judson Memorial Church around 8 p.m. on Saturday night. What surprised these two religious soldiers was how many people in the open bars recognized it immediately, "Why, that is the golden calf. You know, from the bible."

James Salt of Catholics United, who was on a spiritual retreat the weekend before, made the calf. He built and designed it within three days. Why? He was inspired by the actions of Occupy Wall Street and wanted to lend spiritual and biblical support. "Faith and Public Life" rented the van and brought it into town. We put it on our altar, and then carried it down to Wall Street on Sunday to feature it in our multifaith worship service. We are in the process of reproducing the calf as I write. Why? The Calf has returned to D.C. for the weekend's protests there.

When the original calf arrived in our empty sanctuary on Saturday night, about a dozen of us gathered to greet it. The artist was there as well to humbly tell us how he built it. We were moved to pray, which I have to admit is not something we do that often on Saturday nights. We took turns reading Exodus 32, verse by verse. We knew where to find the original golden calf story but we had rarely heard it in the context of paper mache, built into fifty pounds of calf. We started with verse one, how the Exodus people were disappointed with the same Moses who had taken them out of the wilderness. Then Aaron was summoned to leadership. Aaron plotted an overthrow of Moses by building a new altar, a golden calf, made from the earrings of the people. (Some biblical scholars argue that the women refused their jewelry. Who knows?) The people had a big expensive party in front of their handmade idol. Then Moses came back and destroyed the calf, begged God to repent of God's wrath against the people for their idolatry. Then the people repented. And God promised not to destroy them. We remain in prayer, as the calf of Wall Street is not yet in mothballs.

On Sunday, four strong men carried the calf on their shoulders, looking more like pallbearers in a street funeral than anything else. It was hot. They had yellow sponges to cushion the calf's blow to their shoulders. How they walked the two miles with the 50-pound paper Mache calf aloft is a matter of physics. But why they did it is a matter of the spirit. They suited up so reporters would not dare call them hippies. (There is nothing wrong with hippies except that people use them to stay distant from the Occupation Wall Street's general and universal message.) The pallbearers wanted to look like the Wall Street they protested. They marched and carried because they know what idolatry is. It is the replacement of a false God for a better one. Note I did not say true one. We all know how much we have internalized capitalism. We all know our distance from the truth. The 99% don't have an enemy in the 1% so much as a need to bring money in line with human values. Our multifaith service wanted to be sure not to resemble the punishmentalists or those who are absurdly sure about the divine or who like to find someone to blame for what has gone wrong. We went for the basics of our many faiths, the golden rule which is so distanced from and by the golden calf. "Do unto those downstream from you what you would have those upstream from you do to you." This rule applies to hippies, Republicans, church members, ministers, and financiers.

We all know how little Sabbath we keep, how frequently we let other people tell us our value, our place, our position. We all know how much we have let Wall Street control the conversation, alerting us that the market is "up" today or the market is "down." We brought the calf to Wall Street to confess our allegiance to false Gods and to announce that something was dying for us. That death is our own belief in the sacred calf of the Wall Street picture of the universe. The "mike check" was just the beginning of a new conversation, between and among people, about what is really important. What is important is people owning our own times, our own tongues, our own labor, our own worth. What is dead is Wall Street's control of the conversation and us.





Source
.

“The church in the wilderness”

Notre Dame Cathedral, Paris - France


The faith which for many centuries was held and taught by the Waldensian Christians was in marked contrast to the false doctrines put forth from Rome. Their religious belief was founded upon the written word of God, the true system of Christianity. But those humble peasants, in their obscure retreats, shut away from the world, and bound to daily toil among their flocks and their vineyards, had not themselves arrived at the truth in opposition to the dogmas and heresies of the apostate church. Theirs was not a faith newly received. Their religious belief was their inheritance from their fathers. They contended for the faith of the apostolic church,—“the faith which was once delivered to the saints.” “The church in the wilderness,” and not the proud hierarchy enthroned in the world’s great capital, was the true church of Christ, the guardian of the treasures of truth which God has committed to his people to be given to the world.


Among the leading causes that had led to the separation of the true church from Rome, was the hatred of the latter toward the Bible Sabbath. As foretold by prophecy, the papal power cast down the truth to the ground. The law of God was trampled in the dust, while the traditions and customs of men were exalted. The churches that were under the rule of the papacy were early compelled to honor the Sunday as a holy day. Amid the prevailing error and superstition, many, even of the true people of God, became so bewildered that while they observed the Sabbath they refrained from labor also on the Sunday. But this did not satisfy the papal leaders. They demanded not only that Sunday be hallowed, but that the Sabbath be profaned; and they denounced in the strongest language those who dared to show it honor. It was only by fleeing from the power of Rome that any could obey God’s law in peace.


- The Great Controversy 1888, p.64- 65.


EXPERTS CONSIDER RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

Experts consider religious freedom

EXPERTS CONSIDER RELIGIOUS FREEDOM



25 Aug, 2011


Twenty-seven academics and legal experts from 12 countries met at the University of Sydney this week to explore freedom of religion and the rise of secularism during a three-day international think tank. The event—organised by the Adventist-sponsored International Religious Liberty Association (IRLA) in partnership with the Sydney University Law School—was the 13th IRLA Meeting of Experts, and the first to be held in the South Pacific. Previous venues have included Amman, Jordan; Madrid, Spain; and Washington DC, United States.

Yesterday, the final day of the gathering, saw NSW Attorney-General Greg Smith address the delegates along with university students and members of the public. In what University of Sydney professor, Patrick Parkinson, described as a “substantial” speech, the Attorney-General outlined the history of the Australian Constitution, in particular its provisions for religious freedom. He also discussed test cases in various states of Australia, not missing the opportunity to describe the Greens party as having "a strong atheistic and anti-religious tendency."

"Where there is an attempt to curtail the rights of religious groups, particularly Christian ones, the Greens are never too far away," he said, recounting various moves by the Greens to introduce anti-discrimination legislation, which, he said, has had the effect of stifling religious expression rather than protecting it. Later in the meeting, a questioner from the floor stated that some Greens members are active Christians.

The Meeting of Experts focused particularly on the global growth of secularism and how it may erode religious freedom – the “first freedom,” which many see as a cornerstone of the human rights discourse.

(NSW Attorney-General, Greg Smith (left), chats with Pastor Ken Vogel (centre, AUC Religious Liberty Director) and Delbert Baker (right, Vice-President General Conference)


“I wouldn’t say that right now in Australia the secular perspective is privileged,” said Pastor Ken Vogel, general secretary and religious liberty director for the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Australia, “but the secular perspective is being very loudly voiced and there is a chance that that voice could actually gain so much ground that the religious voice is not only not heard but actually rejected.”

According to Dr John Graz, secretary general of the IRLA, these annual forums bring together some of the world’s foremost scholars and practitioners in the field of religious freedom to track legal and sociological trends. “Over the years, IRLA Meetings of Experts have built up a significant body of academic and practical resources,” he says. “This year, we’re delighted to partner with Sydney University Law School. It was a stimulating and productive few days.”

Presenters included Rosa Maria Martinez de Codes, former Spanish Justice Department official and currently Associate Professor, Universidad Complutense de Madrid; Patrick Parkinson, Professor, Sydney University Law School; David Little, Professor Emeritus, Harvard Divinity School; Paul Taylor, barrister-at-law and author; Nicholas Miller, director of the US-based International Religious Liberty Institute; and Blandine Chelini-Pont, Professor of History, Law and Religion, Université Paul Cézanne.

The gathering was tinged with sadness for some who had been friends and associates of Pastor Karel Nowak, director of religious liberty for the Adventist Church in the Euro-Africa Division. Pastor Nowak was in Australia, intending to participate in the meetings, when he died while snorkelling near Cairns, Queensland.

Established in 1893, the IRLA has its headquarters in Silver Spring, Maryland, United States, and is the world’s oldest religious freedom advocacy organisation. It has 13 regional chapters worldwide and national associations in more than 80 countries. Along with the annual Meeting of Experts, the IRLA sponsors regional religious freedom festivals and forums, and every five years organises a world congress, which attracts an international mix of scholars, legal practitioners, government officials and human rights advocates.

Dr. Graz says the Sydney Meeting of Experts was especially important as the material it generated will provide a springboard for next year’s 7th IRLA World Congress, to be held in Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, April 24-26. More information about the Congress and the global work of the IRLA can be found at www.irla.org.





Related:

Experts examine threat of secularism

Sydney, New South Wales

Twenty-seven academics and legal experts from 12 countries met at the University of Sydney this week to explore freedom of religion and the rise of secularism during a three-day international think tank.

The event—organised by the Adventist-sponsored International Religious Liberty Association (IRLA) in partnership with the Sydney University Law School—was the 13th IRLA Meeting of Experts, and the first to be held in the South Pacific. Previous venues include Amman, Jordan; Madrid, Spain; and Washington DC, United States.

“I wouldn’t say that right now in Australia the secular perspective is privileged,” said Pastor Ken Vogel, general secretary and religious liberty director for the Australian Union Conference, “but the secular perspective is being very loudly voiced and there is a chance that that voice could actually gain so much ground that the religious voice is not only not heard but actually rejected.”

The gathering was tinged with sadness for some who had been friends and associates of
Pastor Karel Nowak, director of religious liberty for the Adventist Church in the Euro-Africa Division. Pastor Nowak was in Australia, intending to participate in the meetings, when he died while snorkelling near Cairns, Queensland.

Established in 1893, the IRLA has its headquarters in Silver Spring, Maryland, US, and is the world’s oldest religious freedom advocacy organisation.

Bettina Krause/Kent Kingston

record.net.au • SEPTEMBER 17, 2011 7



New communication director appointed

New communication director appointed
Photo Source: Pablo Lillo

NEW COMMUNICATION DIRECTOR APPOINTED






18 Aug, 2011
By Jarrod Stackelroth


The South Pacific Division (SPD) has appointed James Standish as communication director to fill the role left vacant by previous director, David Gibbons, who resigned for personal reasons.

Mr Standish after moving back to Australia from the United States, recently took up the role of media ministries director for the Adventist Media Network.* Before moving, he was the director of Legislative Affairs at the General Conference (GC) and increased the profile of the organisation with the US government and the United Nations. While in this role, Mr Standish met with politicians and religious leaders from around the world, including two US presidents, Obama and Bush.

“His ability to network with politicians and influential leaders throughout the Pacific is a major advantage,“ said Neale Schofield, CEO of Adventist Media Network. “He has proven experience in increasing the Adventist church’s public profile with people in influential positions.”

“Church administration has complete confidence in him to manage any church crisis,” said Mr Schofield. “Not only is he a lawyer and a quick thinker, he has a great understanding of our church from the GC to local level in all the Divisions around the world.”

Although busy in the world of business and law, Mr Standish has always enjoyed working in the world of media and communication. “One thing I love doing more than anything is writing,” he said. “ I also enjoy doing television and radio.”

He has written a column for the Newsweek/Washington Post’s “On Faith” sitehttp://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/james_standish/ , created and co-hosted more than 100 episodes of a Hope Channel show called “Global Faith and Freedom”, and authored various journals articles and reports, some of which have been presented at the White House. While studying for his BBA at Newbold College, he was editor of the college newspaper, and held editorial roles at the University of Virginia, while completing his MBA, and at Georgetown University, while studying law.

With such an interesting and diverse career in the US, why come now? “We came back so our children could grow up near their extended family and so they could enjoy the unprecedented quality of life Australia offers,” said Mr Standish. “I’ve greatly enjoyed visits and working with church and political leaders in Papua New Guinea, the Solomons and Vanuatu and look forward to working closely with leaders across the Pacific.”

Mr Standish is also excited by the challenges the role presents. “I was ready for a new challenge professionally,” he said. “My perspective is that electronic media is the town square of today. If we don’t have a strong and effective voice, we don’t exist. Personal relationships are still the key but to have presence and impact in society we must have something more. The Adventist church globally is at a crossroads. We have not yet found a way to effectively communicate our message in highly developed, secular societies. I believe our best change of honing that message comes in the SPD. There is a willingness to innovate, a desire to reach and a team with a deep and broad skill set—these things are so necessary. I am looking forward to learning from and working together with the team, taking every opportunity to reach our societies.”

Mr Standish is married to Dr Leisa Standish, who is on the faculty at Macquarie University, and has two young daughters, Shea and Skye.

* If you are interested in the media ministries director role or know someone who might be, see the job description at http://www-adventistemployment-org-au.adventistconnect.org/vacant_positions/394



Source

FAFCE Conference on the contribution of “invisible work” to the creation of wealth



17 October in Brussels: FAFCE Conference on the contribution of “invisible work” to the creation of wealth


In the framework of the European Year of Volunteering and with regard to the recommendations of the Stiglitz report, the findings of the recent OECD report Cooking, Caring and Volunteering: Unpaid Work Around the World, and the EESC Opinions SOC/243, SOC/366 et SOC/399, theFAFCE organises a conference under the sponsorship of Group III of the European Economic and Social Committee on the contribution of « invisible work » to the creation of wealth – an added value to the social cohesion.

According to the OECD report mentioned above “household production constitutes an important aspect of economic activity and ignoring it may lead to incorrect inferences about levels and changes in well-being”.Volunteering, intergenerational solidarity, and mutual help and assistance are all favoured by family associations. In addition, the production of households is one of these kinds of “invisible work”, that contributes directly to social cohesion. Here, the OECD directly addresses the question of the inclusion of this invisible work in the evaluation of wealth of the society and the wellbeing of populations This question leads to others at the heart of an interrogation on social cohesion: are there any reasons to consider gratuitousness in economical terms? Is social cohesion measurable in economical terms? If so, which indicators should be integrated in the usual and existing measures of wellbeing and sustainable development in order to account for the richness of the factors that favour social cohesion? Should these indicators be stimulated and if so, how?

Registration before 10th October: www.fafce.org




Monday, October 10, 2011

GENEVA OR KING JAMES BIBLE?

Image (Courtesy) http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-colonial/1665

PREFACE: Before proceeding, I will state that there are KJV Bible-believers who call themselves Calvinists who do not adhere to the exact doctrines of John Calvin, and do not hold Calvin up as a hero. Many such brothers do work to spread and preach the Gospel for the purposes of winning souls, but call themselves Calvinists due to the scripture-based belief that we are called by Jesus. I have not addressed these brothers in this article, nor have I criticized them. I do regret that they feel it necessary to describe their theology using the name of Calvin, but that is another issue.


1 Peter 2:13 & 14 "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well."


A local brother asked me to respond to an attack against the King James Bible by a gentleman who made the claim that the Geneva Bible is superior due to its allegedly better treatment of the above quoted verse.


Geneva: " 13 & 14 "Submit yourselves unto all manner of ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether it be unto the King, as unto the superior, Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent of him, for the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of them that do well."


Having long been irritated by similar attacks from some fellow members of the patriot community (a name that I will use for the sake of brevity and due to the lack of a better one), I felt compelled to respond.


The essence of the argument is that the following Geneva translation is superior for using the word "superior" instead of "supreme" as the KJV does. He suggested that the KJV is claiming that the king is supreme over all, including God, while the Geneva's choice of the word "superior" does not make such a claim.


This is what happens when someone who considers himself to be the final authority starts looking for excuses to turn from the Final Authority. In their endless pursuit of forcing the Bible to fit what they want it to say, such Bible "correctors" go out of their way to twist facts in order to make themselves appear wise rather than to study to find themselves approved. As is often the case, this critic has failed to understand the passage in the first place. This reference does not state that kings are supreme over God any more than the Geneva Bible's rendering implies that the king is superior to God. This passage refers to the king as supreme or superior to others in respect to their status in relationship to worldly government. This verse must be read in context with the rest of the Bible, which makes it abundantly clear to whom supreme obedience is due.


A few definitions from Webster's 1828 Dictionary are useful here:


SUPRE'ME, a. L. supremus, from supra.1. Highest in authority; holding the highest place in government or power. In the United States, the congress is supreme in regulating commerce and in making war and peace. The parliament of Great Britain is supreme in legislation; but the king is supreme in the administration of the government. In the universe, God only is the supreme ruler and judge. His commands are supreme, and binding on all his creatures.
2. Highest, greatest or most excellent; as supreme love; supreme glory; supreme degree. SUPRE'MELY, adv. With the highest authority. SUPREM'ACY, n. See Supreme. State of being supreme or in the highest station of power; highest authority or power; as the supremacy of the king of Great Britain; or the supremacy of parliament.
SUPE'RIOR, a. Sp.L. from super, above.
1. Higher; upper; more elevated in place; as the superior limb of the sun; the superior part of an image.
2. Higher in rank or office; more exalted in dignity; as a superior officer; a superior degree of nobility.
SUPE'RIOR, n. One who is more advanced in age. Old persons or elders are the superiors of the young.
1. One who is more elevated in rank or office.
2. One who surpasses others in dignity, excellence or qualities of any kind. SUPERIOR'ITY, n. Pre-eminence; the quality of being more advanced or higher, greater or more excellent than another in any respect; as superiority of age, of rank or dignity, of attainments or excellence.


Noah Webster obviously understood the purport of this verse much better than our critic does.


It was suggested to me that we might also consider that we may look upon a head of state as supreme because he is in a position of worldly authority, but that does not make him superior. Bill Clinton was the supreme government official of the United States, but that whoremongering reprobate was not superior to the average skid row bum, and was inferior to most.


It must also be remembered that this is a letter by Peter to foreigners in the region that he is addressing. He is telling them that they are to conduct themselves as good citizens, not as a disruptive rabble. Furthermore, the second clause of the verse does show that the verse refers to governors and kings that are sent by God. The Geneva Bible's rendering of verse 14, on the other hand, seems to suggest that the governors to be obeyed are sent by the king for the punishment of evil. This could be used to demonstrate the opposite point as that of our critic. The Geneva makes a stronger statement about obeying kings and governors than does the KJV.


However, an honest evaluation of both Bible versions on the whole make it clear that neither the KJV nor the Geneva promote placing God below worldly rulers. I will be dealing with this issue in great detail in a future article on Romans 13, but just a quick look through Acts, or any of the books of Prophets alone is enough to make this indisputable. Men and kings are not to be obeyed when they are in opposition to God.


The most absurd aspect of the Geneva Bible promoters is that they make the false or ignorant accusation that King James was responsible for the contents of the Bible that he only commissioned. These Bible "correctors" blow much smoke over the alleged interference by King James by having his attitudes toward kingship was inserted into the text. Contrary to what these unscholarly parrots seem to believe, King James did not translate the Bible nor did he choose the members of the committee. Some members of the committee were even openly opposed to James' view of the divine right of kingship. He was aware of their opposition and did not oppress them for it. In reality, James had no say or part in the actual translating of the texts and he left the worthy members of the translation committee to do their work unhampered. What is particularly absurd about the accusation is that these apostate critics all praise the Geneva Bible for its inclusion of the notes of reformers, most notably those of John Calvin. To whatever level of despotism King James could have been accused of having attained, it cannot, by any standards at all, be compared with the level of tyrannical and cruel despotism of John Calvin.


Calvin was a murderous monster who ruled Geneva as an absolute dictator, both politically and religiously. His opposition was systematically tortured, murdered, and brutalized into submission to his absolute will. His murder of Servetus by burning was an act of the utmost cruelty for no other crime than having opposed Calvin. Calvin's own words concerning Servetus display his great cruelty: "One should not be content with simply killing such people, but should burn them cruelly." The Big Brother government of Orwell and the modern state had a predecessor in the government of Calvin. Christian morals, as interpreted by Calvin, were monitored and enforced through a draconian system of surveillance that recognized no individual rights or privacy. Houses of those suspected of thought crimes were searched by a secret police not unlike the Gestapo, Stasi, KGB, or the emerging Homeland Security of America. Opposition to infant baptism was considered a capital crime the concept of local church authority was attacked by a government in which Calvin had pope-like authority. Condemning the King James Bible for its indirect association with King James when the KJV includes no notes by the king or any other man, while praising a Bible that includes the notes of one of the worst tyrants in the history of Europe, is the height of idiocy, not to mention duplicity.


We might further look at the issue of notes. What business do the notes of man belong in Scripture? I see no problem with personal notes that are placed by the reader in their own Bibles for reminders, details, cross references, and so forth, but man's opinions should not be printed with God's word. Doing so elevates the words of common men to the level of those of prophets, apostles, and God himself. This should apply to the words of sincere Bible-believers as well as to apostates like Scofield or the commentators of the Ryrie and similar tainted Bibles. One of the reasons that the Geneva Bible needed to be replaced is that the notes, whether good or bad, needed to be removed so that God's word would be left pure. It should be added that the notes of the Geneva Bible often undermine the literal interpretation of the Bible in favor of allegorical interpretations. One example is found in Luke in the notes to Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." [KJV]


"(m) He says all this using an allegory, as if he said, "O my friends and fellow soldiers, you have lived until now in relative peace: but now there is at hand a most severe battle to be fought, and you must therefore lay all other things aside and think about dressing yourselves in armour." And what this armour is, is shown by his own example, when he prayed afterward in the garden and reproved Peter for striking with the sword."


Incidentally, this note also contradicts the common rhetoric that the Geneva Bible promotes resistance to ungodly laws of men better than the KJV. An allegorical interpretation of this verse removes one of our best biblical defenses for the Second Amendment of the Bill or Rights, and our right to defend ourselves against godless tyranny. Such an interpretation also would have helped keep Calvin safe from those who would have rebelled against his tyranny. It should be noted that Peter was not carrying an allegorical sword in the garden, and Jesus never reproved him for carrying it, only for trying to hamper what God had ordained to be done. We also need to remember that Jesus told his disciples that the two swords that they had were enough. Are these supposed to be two allegorical swords?


As stated above, Calvin was also a promoter of the blasphemous idea that water baptism of infants cleanses of sin: "At whatever time we are baptized, we are washed and purified once for the whole of life" (Institutes, IV). "By baptism we are ingrafted into the body of Christ ... infants are to be baptized ... children of Christians, as they are immediately on their birth received by God as heirs of the covenant, are also to be admitted to baptism" (Institutes, IV)." As David Cloud points out, this was a clinging to his Catholic upbringing. Cloud further demonstrates that Calvin never really left Catholicism behind, but rather replaced the Pope with himself. He openly praised the heretic Augustine, and placed his words above the authority of the Bible: "If I were inclined to compile a whole volume from Augustine, I could easily show my readers, that I need no words but his" (Institutes, Book III, chap. 22). This is the hero of the Geneva Bible pushers?


It is amazing to witness the hatred that some spew for King James. Some actually act as if they knew him personally and have a personal vendetta against him, while they praise the heretical and murderous tyrant of Geneva. Their real vendetta, of course, is not with King James the I & VI, but with the Bible itself.


God said that he would purify his word seven times.


Psalm 12:6 "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." The Geneva Bible was the fifth English translation. It was a great Bible, but it was not the perfect word of God in English until those notes were removed and other flaws were ironed out. The culmination of this work was with the seventh translation, the Authorized or King James Version. The Psalm 12 verse that follows is also relevant to this discussion: "Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."


The Geneva Bible promoters apparently believe that God lied about preserving his words, because the Geneva Bible virtually disappeared from existence along with the Coverdale, Great, Bishops and other worthy predecessors of the King James Bible. It was the KJV that built the church and it is the KJV that is holding together the remnant church during the great falling away in which we currently live. It was the KJV that inspired the great missionary movement of the nineteenth century, and it was the KJV that brought about the Bible translations of that period throughout the world. The Geneva Bible advocates never did anything to spread the Gospel, and neither did the strict followers of John Calvin. This is why William Carey's great efforts to spread the Gospel as commanded by Christ "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature" [Mark 16:15] were denounced by some during his time. Their Calvinistic views prevented them from obeying the Great Commission and they have not changed, but rather they have gotten far worse.


These advocates of the Geneva Bible would have us believe that all of this was error while the "true" Bible was unprinted and hidden in a few libraries. This should remind us of the claims of the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus advocates, although I am in no way comparing the text of the Geneva Bible with those corrupt texts. The Geneva Bible advocates would have us believe that the only ones that have the "true" Bible are largely of a bunch of baby-sprinkling who have and do not give any witness, and foul-mouthed, cigarette-smoking, beer-guzzling, racist, ignoramuses, common law shysters, money-grubbing parasites on the patriot community and Identity Cult clods with below average IQs that just arose into view in the last couple of decades.


This latter statement is not a reflection of the Geneva Bible, but rather of the bulk of its modern advocates. No one has printed a Geneva Bible that is of an affordable price, and no one distributes them for free. They range between 45 to 100 plus dollars. This is because the dollar sign is their god. Finding very inexpensive KJV Bibles is very easy, and there are many people supplying them for free. There is an entirely different spirit behind KJV printing. I have yet to see anyone trying to distribute Geneva Bibles for the purpose of spreading the Gospel. Are these profiteers the real remnant? I trow not.


My first encounters with Geneva Bible advocates were among Identity Cult members and at common law meetings. The racist and anti-Christian views expressed by these gentleman, along with their use of four letter words sputtered between puffs of cigarette smoke, were enough to make their real goals obvious. These "gentlemen" did not actually understand the Geneva Bible or even read it. Their purpose was the same as those of the Westcott Hort perversion promoters. It was simply to undermine our faith in the Final Authority and to replace it with our own understanding. It was no more than an excuse for rebellion. If the KJV is not enough, and we need the Geneva Bible, the Fenton Bible, or whatever, why not use the ASV, RSV, NIV or whatever other book suits our personal tastes? It is notable that most Geneva advocates use the exact same lame arguments to attack the KJV that the Westcott Hort and atheist crowd uses. They use the same stupid and baseless accusation that King James was a sodomite, and the same invalid accusations of errors. It is hardly surprising that many of these Geneva Bible advocates and their Identity and common law movement bedfellows also do promote and use multiple modern versions, heretic Pete Peters being a prime example.


One of the best examples of the spirit of this crowd was displayed for me at a survival show at which I was lecturing on the topic of wilderness survival. I was wearing a KJV 1611 cap when a man selling common law reprints approached me and commented on it. He was friendly enough, but he told me that he was selling Geneva Bibles -- which were quite expensive I should add -- and that I might consider getting one. He then proceeded to tell me how a *$%oøT¢ preacher from a ^%$#^&£? church argued that the KJV was a better Bible. He went on and on describing this gentleman using virtually every four letter word that I know, including those that blaspheme God, those that refer to sexual activity, and those referring to human excretions. He told me that the man ended up reading the Geneva Bible and apologized to him later. Even though this man had asked him for forgiveness, although he should not have, the salesman described him with the worst of foul language imaginable. His spiritual position was obvious: Mark 11:26 "But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses." I walked away shaking my head. I did not argue with him. He was probably the best advocate for the KJV in that building.


A final issue that should not be overlooked concerns the metrical superiority of the KJV. While the overwhelming majority of the Geneva Bibles verses do not conflict with those of the KJV, they do, however lack the metrical flow that greatly facilitates the memorization of the KJV. The King James translators made a conscious effort choose words that flowed easily from the tongue and better enabled the ability of men to retain them in their hearts. The Geneva's style was a heavier and less eloquent presentation of
God's word.


In summary, Geneva Bible promotion is little more than an effort to attack the inerrancy and perfection of the Bible. It has the exact same goal of those of the leftist Westcott Hort promoting crowd, and it uses most of the same blank ammunition. It may stem from a group with very different political objectives, but it ultimately comes from the same desire to place oneself as supreme, rather than placing God's word as supreme.


Endnotes


My thanks to Jerry Bouey, Herb Evans, and Teno Groppi for their thoughts and assistance in researching this article.



John Hinton, Ph.D.
Bible Restoration Ministry
A ministry seeking the translating and reprinting of KJV equivalent
Bibles in all the languages of the world.


jhinton@post.harvard.edu


Source

KING JAMES BIBLE VERSUS GENEVA BIBLE




The attack on the King James Bible comes in many forms chiefly with the proliferation of a multitude of modern versions that altered the Holy Bible in thousands of places. Then a more subtle form comes from the resurrection of the older English versions that God has bypassed in church history leaving them on the shelves in the annals of history. Of late, the promotion of the Geneva Bible comes into focus with the aim of replacing the King James Bible. It is the same strategy employed to deceive readers into thinking that going back to the originals is better and in this case, the original English version that the Puritans used. Below is a discussion taken from the Which Version Club to clear the myth that The Geneva Bible is the correct English Bible to be used by English speaking Christians.


<><><><><><><><>

I need to write a short article on this, but for now let me very briefly clear up yet another MYTH...

To wit, the MYTH that the Puritans continued to use the Geneva Bible after the KJB was produced and in fact had to be almost coerced into using the KJB.

This is PURE MYTH.

In fact, it was the PURITANS who REQUESTED the translation of the KJB to begin with. Without the Puritans REQUESTING the KJB, there would never have BEEN a KJB.

Moreover, a great many of the KJB translators were themselves PURITANS, and contrary to our modern day myth-makers from established religious and orthodox seminaries, the Puritans adopted the KJB with virtual IMMEDIACY.

All one must do to confirm this is READ the quotations of such men as John Bunyan (who stated that he believed the Authorised Version to be the EXACT REPLICA of the autographs), John Owen, Richard Baxter, Thomas Boston, Thomas Brooks, Stephen Charnock, Thomas Goodwin, George Swinnock, and MANY others, and it will be discovered that these men ALL lived within a generation of the publication of the KJB, and that these men ALL used the KJB, NOT the Geneva Bible.

As I said, when time allows I'm going to write a short article demonstrating all of this, but for now don't be fooled by the MYTH that the Puritans stuck to the Geneva Bible after the KJB came out, because it just ain't so.


Scott

<><><><><><><><>

Ah, a MYTH it is indeed! Scott is right on when he states that it was the Puritans that requested a new Bible be produced. I've debated this several times in the past and wrote a short article on the Pilgrims and the Geneva Bible. Following is an excerpt from the article. I believe it applies to this current thread.

“As you can see, it appears everyone is adamant that the Bible of the early Pilgrims was the Geneva Bible and “certainly not the King's of England's Bible!”. Perhaps the record should be set straight as to whose Bible this was. It was certainly not the King of England's Bible. For far too long this rhetoric has been spouted. King James had nothing to do with the translation of this Bible nor did he even come up with the idea to produce a new translation. Here are the historical facts of the matter as laid down by Samuel Bagster in the wonderful book, “An Historical Account of the English Versions of the Scriptures” (published - 1841).

Soon after James I ascended the throne on March 24, 1603 a petition in the name of more than 1,000 ministers was brought before the King. The petition, called the “Millenary Petition”, was separated into 4 headings; 1) Things connected with the Church service; 2) Church ministers; 3) Church living and maintenance; and 4) Church discipline. Promptly, a letter was written in answer of these matters and sent to the King by the University of Oxford. Because of this James I decided to bring the matter to a public conference. Delegates representing the Anglicans and those of the petitioners were invited to the palace of Hampton Court the following January. The delegates representing the 1,000 ministers were Dr. John Reynolds, Dr. Thomas Sparke of Oxford, Mr. Chadderton and Mr. Knewstubbs from Cambridge. At the conference Dr. Reynolds took on the role as chief speaker and brought before the King a request “for a New Translation of the Bible” on the second day.

Prior to this day there is no historical record that the King had entertained such a notion as a new Bible translation. Dr. Reynolds' suggestion (which was really the suggestion of the 1,000 petitioners) found favor in the King's eyes and James I heard Reynolds and the others concerning the matter. During the conference, the Anglican delegates, led by Archbishop Bancroft, opposed the idea of a new translation. Despite Bancroft's efforts King James I gave permission to Dr. Reynolds and the delegates with him to proceed with the process of rendering a new translation of the Bible into the English language. “The method proposed by the king was this; that the version should be made by some of the most learned men in both the Universities, that it should then be reviewed by the bishops and other of the most learned ecclesiastics, that it should then be laid before the Privy Council, and last of all be ratified by Royal authority, so that in the whole Anglican establishment this translation so made should be used, and no other (Bagster, “An Historical Account of the English Versions of the Scriptures”, p. 149).”

For long King James I has been blamed for the removal of the notes found in the Geneva Bible. This is not an entirely true statement and the facts have been misrepresented as have most `facts' that are reported by the other side. While the King didn't necessarily agree with some of the notes there is absolutely no indication that he planned to force the translators to remove them. If anyone can produce information to the contrary I would be delighted to have it. Interestingly enough, the idea to have the notes removed entirely came from Archbishop Bancroft and not Dr. Reynolds, King James I or any of the petitioners. So, the next time you hear or read the lie that King James I wanted a new Bible because he didn't like the notes or that he was responsible for their removal you can present the facts. As I stated earlier, James I didn't like some of the notes but it wasn't until after Bancroft suggested that they be withheld from the new translation that James I commented on them.” (taken from Pilgrims and the Geneva Bible by Martin A. Shue)

Side-note: Scott, you may find it laughable but in one certain discussion group I was told that not a single one of the KJB translators was “a Puritan”. I presented him with a list of names as long as my arm and he responded by saying that since I didn't know these men personally I couldn't say “for sure” what their beliefs were. I offered many references of what many men had stated about these translators but he ignored all the evidence and continued to insist that none of the translators were Puritans.

Marty

<><><><><><><><>

Sure. Here is the exact quote by Bunyan --


"As Mr. Bunyan was upon the road near Cambridge, there overtakes him a scholar that had observed him a preacher, and said to him, How dare you preach, seeing you have not the original, being not a scholar?

Then said Mr. Bunyan, Have you the original? Yes, said the scholar. Nay, but, said Mr. Bunyan, have you the very self-same original copies that were written by the penmen of the scriptures, prophets and apostles? No, said the scholar, but we have the true copies of those originals. How do you know that? said Mr. Bunyan. How? said the scholar. Why, we believe what we have is a true copy of the original.

Then, said Mr. Bunyan, SO DO I BELIEVE OUR ENGLISH BIBLE IS A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL. Then away rid the scholar." The Struggler, Works of John Bunyan

The term "ENGLISH BIBLE" in those day ALWAYS without exception referred to the Authorised Version.

Moreover, it can easily be demonstrated that Bunyan used the AV, for with only a handful of exceptions, he quoted the AV in ALL his writings. In fact, of the handful (or less) times that he quoted from the Geneva, the context usually indicates that he was quoting from memory, as even his editor noted on one or two occasions.

Consider how prolific Bunyan was in his writings, meaning that there were literally thousands upon thousands upon thousands of quotations made by him in all his writings, the fact that almost every single one of these quotations came from the AV is enough to prove that Bunyan and the other Puritans of his day employed the AV, not the Geneva.

It also proves that Bunyan was not coerced into using the AV, for the fact that he quoted the Geneva in a few cases demonstrates that he was not in the least bit intimidated about quoting whichever Bible he wanted to quote.

It is significant that John Bunyan, John Owen, et. al., all quoted from the AV.

Scott

<><><><><><><><>

Some notes on Puritan use of the KJB which I have extracted from my book.


1. Various translators of the King James Bible were moderate Puritans, including Thomas Harrison, Laurence Chaderton, Samuel Ward, John Reynolds, Miles Smith and George Abbot. The fact that George Abbot became the next Archbishop of Canterbury shows how much King James favoured moderate Puritanism. Miles Smith wrote the address to the reader in the front of the King James Bible specifically appealing to the Puritan mind.


2. The representatives from England who went to the Synod of Dort, 1620, included Dr Samuel Ward, who praised the KJB.


3. The 1638 Edition of Cambridge was edited by two of the original translators, John Bois and Samuel Ward, and two other learned men, Joseph Mede and J. Goad. Joseph Mede was a Cambridge Puritan and the notable influence on John Milton.


4. Oliver Cromwell went to Samuel Ward's college at Cambridge and when Cromwell ruled England, King James Bibles (not Geneva Versions) were printed by his authority. "When in 1616 Cromwell went up to Cambridge it was to Sidney Sussex, a college ... Its master, the [Puritan] Samuel Ward, was one of the translators of King James's Bible, the book which Cromwell was to turn to so often for ideas, ammunition and arguments to fortify his opinions; and to which the eloquence and forcefulness of his language owed so much." (Young, P., 1975, Oliver Cromwell and His Times, Severn House Publishers, London, Great Britain, page 14). His biographers have pointed out that it was "The `Authorised Version' of James I., from which Cromwell appears always to quote".


5. William Prynne used the KJB.


6. John Milton used the KJB.


7. John Canne was given authority for seven years from 1653 to print Bibles with his notes.


8. Brian Walton believed, "the English translation of the Bible", as John Selden (1584-1654) recorded, "is the best translation in the world and renders the sense of the original best." Thomas Fuller (1608-1661) wrote, "the last translation of the Bible, which no doubt was done by those learned men in the best English, agreeth perfectly with the common speech of our country". And Bulstrode Whitelocke (1605-1675) recorded, "the Bible in English; which was yet agreed to be the best of any translation in the world".


Bible Protector

<><><><><><><><>


The Geneva Version was rejected by King James, who believed it to be corrupt and deficient, and therefore entertained the suggestion that a new translation of the Bible should be made. The King James Bible is similar to the Geneva Version in many respects, which shows how much the translators really did esteem it; nevertheless, there are some differences which must be brought to general attention.


1. The text of the Geneva, while close to the King James Bible, shows some variations in selection from Textus Receptus material.


2. The translation of the Geneva, while close to King James Bible, shows some differences in rendering of ideas.


3. That unlike the King James Bible, the helps, marginal material and other matters were biased toward a particular interpretation, because it was accomplished in the predominantly Calvinist republic of Geneva.


This is not to say that the Geneva Version was badly done, or unusable; merely, that revision was necessary, as the King James Bible translators themselves admitted. In 1911, Hoare, author of "Our English Bible", wrote, "England might have remained up to this day distracted by the conflicting claims of rival versions of the Scripture, and we might even now be calling out, in the spirit of the Corinthian converts of St Paul, `I am of Tyndale,' `I am of Coverdale,' `I am of Geneva.'"

But the moderate Puritans saw the value of the King James Bible, and though some support persisted for the Geneva Version (e.g. by certain English Presbyterians), the decade of the 1650s saw the death of the Geneva Version, under the very rule of the Puritans. The Cambridge Printers in 1656, for example, were printing the King James Bible by the conferred privilege of Oliver Cromwell.

Those modern detractors make out as if the Puritans were altogether about to dethrone the King James Bible, and reinstate the Geneva, when in fact we find that the Puritans made deliberate decisions (in the Providence of God) to uphold the King James Bible.

Bible Protector

<><><><><><><><>


For more information on the deficiencies of the Geneva Bible, please read Brother Will Kinney's article on this topic.


The Deficiencies of The Geneva Bible


<><><><><><><><>


For more information on the Geneva Bible issue, please also read Dr. Hinton's article below:


Geneva or King James Bible


Source