«

»

Jun 07

Bilderberg meets in Chantilly, Virginia

Henri de Castries, Chairman of Bilderberg

Henri de Castries, Chairman of Bilderberg

American and European top politicians, industrialists and bankers met last weekend to decide how the world will be run.  The Bilderberg Group gathered at Chantilly, Virginia, USA from 2nd to 4th June 2017.

You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to be concerned about it.

Firstly, these wealthy individuals rather than politicians we elect are going to determine what should be done in the world.

Secondly, whatever they decide, be sure it will benefit these ‘kings of the earth’ first, and the rest of us a long way behind.

Lastly, the Bible teaches conspiracy not as theory but as fact:

Psalm 2:2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, …

Overlapping membership with world elite

Kenneth Clarke was on the Bilderberg steering group for years.

Kenneth Clarke was on the Bilderberg steering group for years.

Bilderberg is named after the Dutch hotel where the group first met in 1954.  It is highly secretive and had to be pushed and shamed a few years ago even into having a website.  Naturally, the website does the minimum, publishing a list of those attending and an agenda.  Up until ten or so years ago journalists had to find out the annual guest list from staff at the latest venue.

Leading members have included Dennis Healey, Kenneth Clarke, Peter Lord Carrington, the Irishman Peter Sutherland and Henry Kissinger.  Bilderberg has strong links by personnel to other groups of the world’s elite.  Both the US and the European Council on Foreign Relations are part of the same network.  The Trilateral Commission, founded by David Rockefeller, includes in addition the elite of the Far East.  The TC membership linked off their website here overlaps with Bilderberg.  The World Bank and IMF, Davos, the globalist Club of Rome and numerous think-tanks such as the Aspen Institute are also in the loop.

In the past we have reported on last year’s meeting in Dresden, their meeting in Watford, England in 2013 and the previous get-together at Chantilly in 2012.  We also exposed links between Bilderberg and those agitating for a pro-EU stance from Ukraine.

The Bilderberg agenda

Here is this year’s agenda, straight off the website:

The Trump Administration: A progress report
Trans-Atlantic relations: options and scenarios
The Trans-Atlantic defence alliance: bullets, bytes and bucks
The direction of the EU
Can globalisation be slowed down?
Jobs, income and unrealised expectations
The war on information
Why is populism growing?
Russia in the international order
The Near East
Nuclear proliferation
China
Current events

Bilderberg clearly don’t like populism.  It might upset their apple cart.  They also talked about China and Russia.  How many Russians do you think were there?  Precisely none.  And how many Chinese?  Just the one, that nation’s ambassador to the US.  There was no-one from Asia and no-one from South America.  Naturally, no-one was invited from Africa or from Eastern Europe.  Sorry, there was one Polish guy there, but only because he is a professor at Harvard.  Furthermore, there was no delegate from Israel.  However, five industrialists and economists came from Turkey.  Apart from that, there was no-one from the Middle East.  That’s because Bilderberg was ‘designed to foster dialogue between Europe and North America’.

Charlie Skelton has been lampooning Bilderberg for years in the Guardian.  Accordingly, here is his take on the inclusion of the agenda item on globalisation: ‘You think that the assembled heads of Google, AT&T, Bayer, Airbus, Deutsche Bank, Ryanair, Fiat Chrysler, and the Frankfurt Stock Exchange want to see a brake on globalisation? It’s the air that they breathe.’

Prospects and high-flyers

Bilderberg liked Tony Blair four years before he became Prime Minister

Bilderberg liked Tony Blair four years before he became Prime Minister

But make no mistake, Bilderberg is the primary concentrated gathering of those who see themselves as the world’s elite.  The official 2017 guest list reveals the meeting was chaired by Henri de Castries, boss of AXA insurance. The king of the Netherlands rubbed shoulders with Ryanair’s Michael O’Leary.

Ultra-hawkish US Senators Tom Cotton and Lindsey Graham were there.  In the past, Bilderberg has been good at identifying future Prime Minsters and Presidents.  It is where Tony Blair was anointed in 1993 before he won the 1997 election.

Another website says: ‘Arkansas governor Bill Clinton, for example, who attended in 1991. “There, David Rockefeller told (him) why the North American Free Trade Agreement….was a Bilderberg priority and that the group needed him to support it. The next year, Clinton was elected president.” On January 1, 1994 NAFTA took effect.’

Of course, existing high-flyers are also in evidence.  Sometimes they will be insiders, thinking along the same liines.  At other times they will be those whom the inner circle wish to influence.  Accordingly, this year, Donald Trump’s National Security Adviser, H.R. McMaster, attended alongside David Petraeus, former CIA Director.  Jens Stoltenberg, NATO’s Secretary General, pitched up.  William J. Burns, President of the Carnegie Endowment was there.  So was Christopher Liddell, Who is an Assistant to Donald Trump, and Director of Strategic Initiatives in the White House.

UK Guest list

The UK Guest list was a little light this year, maybe because of the General Election.  Nevertheless, these eight made it:

Andrew Adonis, Chair, National Infrastructure Commission
Marcus Agius, Chairman, PA Consulting Group
General Sir John Nicholas Reynolds, Former Chief of the Defence Staff
George Osborne, Editor, London Evening Standard
Gideon Rachman, Chief Foreign Affairs Commentator, The Financial Times
John Sawers, Chairman and Partner, Macro Advisory Partners
Sharon White, Chief Executive, Ofcom
Martin Wolf, Chief Economics Commentator, Financial Times

The annual meetings take place under what is known as the ‘Chatham House rule’ which was invented by London’s Royal Institute of International Affairs.  Consequently, ‘Participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed.’

So don’t expect any report to come out.  Of course, all the journalists present are sworn to secrecy.  The website says of its meetings: ‘There is no desired outcome, no minutes are taken and no report is written.  Furthermore, no resolutions are proposed, no votes are taken, and no policy statements are issued.’

Scripture

Psalm 2:4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.

As you pray into this, for the Lord to bring their plans to naught, be sure he will have the final word:

READ: Psalm 2:1-4, 48:7, 64, 76:12, 149; Isaiah 24::21; Luke 8:17; John 15:18; 2Cor 10:3-5; Rev 19:19-20.

 

Share

17 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. [email protected]

    Thanks for posting about this meeting. It is the New World Order at work and we must pray against the work of the elites and their ever greater attempts at controlling the world… and not for the benefit of most of us. In fact, it is said that only the worlds richest people, the top 1%, will benefit from the plans of the global elite.

  2. Rox

    It’s certainly appropriate that the cream of politicians, industrialists and bankers should meet in Chantilly. I don’t suppose it was the kind of top people’s secret meeting where there was any whipping, though.

    Supposing Jeremy Corbyn wins on what is (as I write) tomorrow.
    There is the thought of government in the hands of Jeremy Corbyn and Donald Trump. You give us a whiff of government being in the hands of people more like Dennis Healey and Kenneth Clarke. That’s not so bad.

  3. colinford

    Dear Stephen,
    Thank you for your e-mail regarding Bilderberg and our ‘planet’, so-called.
    This motivated me to log on to your site.

    Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law. Psalm 119.18.

    We don’t live on a planet, the Bible knows nothing of planets-only the sun, moon and stars.
    I am NOT a ‘conspiracy theorist’ just a believer in God’s Word. Left to God’s word alone, we could only know that the earth is FLAT (or rather not a spinning globe).

    I have written a small e-book on kindle “Antarctica Does It End? Hast thou comprehended the breadth of the earth? Declare if thou knowest it all.” Colin Ford. It is my humble prayer that it may open your eyes.
    God bless you.

    1. Rox

      The Bible knows nothing of computers either.

      Or television, or buses, or Antarctica.

      Or ice-cream .

    2. Stephen

      God’s word does NOT say ‘The earth is flat’.

      1. Rox

        He isn’t saying it does. He is only saying that if you ONLY read the BIble you would assume it was flat, and you would not know that it is a planet.

        That is true.

        But if he only read the Bible, he would probably not have gone out and bought a computer, probably not have been able to use it if he had done (and would he be allowed to read anything on the computer except the Bible ?) and he would not know about Antarctica .

        He would know about conspiracy theories either. Even you must admit that anyone who ONLY reads the Bible isn’t very well-equipped for modern life. Anyone who allows himself to know about modern discoveries like Antarctica will also know that the Earth is a spherical planet.

        The planets were well known to the Babylonians. Is there really no hint that the Jews didn’t pick up anything about this while in exile ? They might be referred to as “stars” (as also was what might well have been a comet) .Even nowadays, Venus is referred to as the Morning Star or Evening Star.

        1. Stephen

          No, the Bible does not the earth is either flat or spherical. Not sure the Hebrews have a word for a ‘sphere’ as opposed to a ‘circle’. But any sailor would get a clue from the horizon. Ancient people were not stupid, as your point about the Babylonians makes clear.

          1. Rox

            I can thoroughly recommend Colin Ford’s fascinating book. It only costs £1.99 on Amazon, and it doesn’t take long to read, being only a dozen or two pages long (depending on how you set your Kindle reader, which can of course be just a free programme on your computer).

            The theory is very unusual, and has the great advantage of doing away with fears about global warming, or over-population, because Mr Ford’s flat earth is infinite. It is not a limited spherical planet at all, but recalls the Jewish idea of the earth and the heavens as drawn in some bibles, but with his own peculiar modification.

            This isn’t completely spelt out, but as I understand it, the flat earth has the North Pole at the centre, and the familiar map of the earth spread out around it in a circle, so that Antarctica forms the circumference of the circular earth, in the form, at first, of a “massive ice wall”, but with much more beyond the wall than most people currently realise (hence the title of the book). This fits with the author’s observation that “the further south we go, lines of latitude ever widen, ad infinitum.” Writing as he does from the Isle of Lewis, this doesn’t affect him personally.

            The benefit of it to mankind (or to Christians anyway) is that global warming, or other more esoteric acts of God, can melt the ice wall, and we can occupy the infinite territory of the flat earth beyond.

            Mr Ford understandably directs his attacks on those who disagree with him principally at the disinformation from NASA and the Soviet Union.
            “Can you imagine the top brass at NASA saying ‘Sorry you guys, the Bible was right all along, the World is flat and we never sent anyone to the moon ….’ ?”
            No, I certainly can’t. Most of us would agree with Ford on this point.
            But I don’t think it’s terribly important, because his main reason for not landing on the moon (it generates its own light and heat like the sun, Matthew 24.29, also Genesis) is another issue; and wherever it is in Ford’s scheme of things, there might be a way of getting there.

            Nor am I very convinced by his quotation of Genesis 19.23 “The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered into Zoar”. I don’t think this disproves that what had really happened was that the Earth had rotated so that Zoar had become illuminated by the sun when Zoar entered it. Newton and NASA remained happy with terms like “sunrise”, as we all do !

            Mr Ford does not see satellites as a hoax like the moon landings, but believes that satellites are just going round in circles above his flat circular earth. These circles never cross over his Antarctica (which of course would be impossible). He doesn’t explain what keeps the satellites going.

            As I see it, however, the obvious objections to this novel theory go back much further than any kind of space travel, and do need to be explained away, if possible. Perhaps Colin will oblige.

            Firstly there is Newton, but he doesn’t seem to understand Newton, and dismisses gravitation as “a myth”. In fact, he says that if the Earth was rotating, “the water would soon go flying off” and “there would be no water left”. [ But surely that is only if gravitation were a “myth” : admittedly I don’t fully understand this part of the book ]. Let’s move on.

            Most importantly, it seems to have escaped Ford’s notice that if “the further south we go, lines of latitude ever widen”, then lines of latitude south of the Equator will be longer than the Equator. If this was true, you would not have to be a genius to notice it. Already in the later 19th century, globes and atlases commonly marked shipping lanes such as Southampton to New York 3019 miles, and Cape Town to Montevideo 3005 miles. If Mr Ford were right, then Cape Town to Montevideo would be very much further than that ! Any ship which assumed the distance was the same as from Southampton to New York would run out of coal and food. This didn’t happen. He needs to introduce some kind of relativity into his theory, perhaps.

            Australians would find that their country was much bigger than they thought, and it would, even today, take much longer to reach Perth from Sydney than it does, on a railway which would have cost much more to build than estimated. You don’t need to bring in NASA. This just doesn’t seem to be on, not superficially, but there may be a subtle explanation,

            Anyway, I would be interested to read Colin Ford’s views on this apparent paradox before I review his intriguing book in the place provided by Amazon.

          2. Stephen

            In other words, he is ignoring the evidence.

          3. Rox

            Well, he sees worldly evidence differently from most people, or he wouldn’t have a different theory. But he doesn’t ignore the evidence he finds in the Bible, nor certain recent evidence about Antarctica, which you need to read the book to appreciate.

            “I believe it is entirely because of what God says in His word that confirms the heliocentric solar-system theory to be false. ……recent unguarded comments made by scientific / space research agencies from their research stations in Antarctica have helped me to establish this …..These have confirmed beyond all doubt that what God’s word says in the Bible about the fixedness and shape of our ‘planet’ is true, and He should know, for he created it”.

            Personally, I still can’t reconcile this with the latitude paradox.
            If Ford is right, then from the South Orkney Islands to Adélie Land would be VASTLY further than from the original Shetland Islands to Alaska (without crossing the pole). But it isn’t. This is not uncharted territory, and the distance is known to be much the same.

            As the Bible is written in terms which people would understand at the time it was written, discrepancies from our modern view are scarcely surprising. You wouldn’t expect Jesus to add a caveat “Although of course, I know that the moon only reflects the light of the sun and is not a source of energy itself”.

            There are also poetical passages (especially in Job) which Ford tends to take too literally.

  4. colinford

    Rox,
    I am glad that you have found my little e-book “fascinating”. I am under no misapprehension; it will definitely NOT be a best-seller! People seem to only want fiction-not the truth!

    I am very humbled that I believe what I believe, this is only by God’s grace alone.

    I am currently expanding upon this little work of mine, and pray that it would be a blessing to those that are ‘simple’ (like me), that is those who trust in God’s word ALONE, and not in “science falsely called” 1 Timothy 6.20?

    There is much else that I could have added to my little work, which I hope to do so very soon, God willing.
    I don’t claim to have all the answers, neither do the ‘scientists’! All I do know is that we are being drip fed a continual stream of lies and misinformation. Why is it that most of the NASA/ESA images are either photo-shopped or artist impressions?

    BTW, can we force a globe into Isaiah 40.22, when Isaiah uses a different Hebrew word for “ball” in chapter 22 v 18?

    The United Nations logo depicts so I believe, the truth-they KNOW! God does indeed “sitteth upon the circle of the earth”! The margin reads “above”.

    Our eschatology shapes what we believe, I am a historic pre-millennial believer (NOT a pre-trib rapture Dispensationalist).

    God bless .

    1. Stephen

      I trust in God’s word, but I also believe the news that the All Blacks beat the British Lions at rugby football today. That is not in conflict with the Bible, and neither is a spherical earth.
      From where Isaiah was standing, or where any of us are standing, there is a horizon all around us. So he could say that was a H2328 ‘CHUG’, circle, or circuit. Why did he not use DUR (ball or circle)? I don’t know. But I do know I’m not about to build a theology on my understanding of one disputable word in one verse, that’s for sure.
      Isaiah, you see, also knows the sun rises in the east and sets in the west:
      Isa 45:6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.
      On a flat earth I should see the sun all the time. It would just get bigger and smaller. It would not disappear over the horizon.
      And on 1Tim 6:20, it could be argued, Colin, that you believe you have the ‘gnosis’, the ‘science’, and that you are promoting profane and vain babblings.
      Quantas fly Sydney to Santiago. It has a planned flight time of 13 hours 27 minutes and a planned distance 6347 nautical miles. It flies as close to Antarctica as 71 deg S. If Antarctica were stretched out all around the perimeter of a flat circular earth those figures would make no sense. See this website.
      Why am I even spending the Lord’s valuable time researching and arguing this?

      1. Rox

        It looks as though Stephen and I are dangerously close to agreeing with each other again.

        Good points about the sun, and about the plane from Sydney to Santiago (an updating of my ship from Cape Town to Montevideo, but the more the merrier).

        According to Colin’s theory, the North Pole and the South Pole are very different concepts, in fact it is doubtful if the South Pole exists, despite having a research establishment there (Colin please explain). However, if you are near the North Pole, at midsummer the sun does not rise and set (despite what Isaiah or anybody else says), but it does go round the horizon in a circle, rather as if the earth was indeed a flat circle and the sun was a bright football rolling round the edge of it. Yet at the northern midwinter it has disappeared completely, to be rolling round in a circle with the South Pole at the centre. Please explain this, Colin. It doesn’t seem to be possible according to your theory, but suggests that the North and South Poles are very similar. (The rest of us may be convinced that this really happens by simulating it on our computers using a good “Stars at Night” programme — which must be all part of the elaborate Conspiracy, I suppose, and a very clever one as they seem to show the night or daytime sky anywhere, any time, so accurately — I can see the very bright star which my mother says was in the sky when I was born, and I can see that it was Venus close to Jupiter !).

        Colin, please explain how God has arranged for Qantas to be able to fly from Sydney to Santiago in 13 hours 27 minutes (and don’t just tell us that you are too humble to know anything about that). You have completely and utterly failed to explain any of the geographical “paradoxes” which your theory creates. In short, how is it that well-known inhabited places relatively near to Antarctica are MUCH closer together than they could be if you are right ?

        I will review your book on Amazon, giving it 5 stars because it’s very interesting, but my review will be (in the best sense, I hope) a critical one.
        When the new edition is available, please let me know on ddraig.goch@talktalk.net (which is not my usual email address, folks !).

  5. colinford

    Stephen,
    Of course you “trust in God’s word” that is a given. Every professing Christian should ever speak likewise.

    It is most obvious that you haven’t read my little book, nor do I expect you to, but if you had, you would know that I most certainly haven’t built “a theology on my understanding of one disputable word in one verse”. I will quote Rox; “He is only saying that if you ONLY read the Bible you would assume it was flat, and you would not know that it is a planet. That is true.”
    Left to God’s word ALONE, we could ONLY ever know the earth is flat, or rather not a globe. The evidence in the Bible against a spinning planet/globe is so overwhelming that I sometimes wonder how it ever took hold! Nevertheless, Copernicus’s theory became ‘fact’ under the auspices of the pagan Roman Catholic church (we were coming out of the dark/middle ages, remember?). This took place as the glorious Reformation was getting under way, when the masses were uneducated and ill equipped to challenge “this novel doctrine” as Luther called it. Notwithstanding, some Protestants didn’t swallow Copernicus’s theory, but they were in the minority.

    I DON’T claim to have any “gnosis” or “science” as you incorrectly say.
    At best (or worst?): I can only be accused of defending God’s word! a charge I will most readily and gladly plead guilty to! Likewise, I accept the charge of taking Scripture “too literally”, for who are we to dismiss Scripture as “poetical”? We do this at our peril. I make no apologies for taking the book of Job “literally”, ever remember that God spake through His prophet Ezekiel and mentions Job by name along with Noah and Daniel. James, also spake of this Old Testament saint: I think we should be very careful before dismissing certain verses as “poetical”, don’t you? There is much information in Job regards the creation of the heavens and the earth.

    I will make absolutely NO attempt to explain air travel distances and where exactly the sun goes when it disappears out of our sight under the horizon, for I know that “the secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and our children forever” As for this metabunk.com, I am a little sad that you would trust a secular ‘science’ website than what is written in God’s word. As for the Almighty God, He “doeth great things and UNSEARCHABLE; Marvellous things without number.” Also; “Which doeth great things PAST FINDING OUT; Yea and WONDERS WITHOUT NUMBER.” Job 5.9 & 9.10, do we really believe this? Consider also Ecclesiastes 3.11 & 8.17.

    I know my pre-millennial theology is not in accord with your theology, but nevertheless, it is my earnest prayer that God may be pleased to bless your ministry to “save that which was lost.”
    (Capitalization for emphasis).

    God bless.

    PS.
    Are the Copernican diagrams, mathematical ‘proofs’ the schoolroom globe and maps of a turnip shaped earth; the technical terms , such as parallactic motion, spheroid, terrestrial axes, plane, orbit, equator, poles & c, anything else than the tricks of a disguised atheism now misleading multitudes?

    This was written by an old time writer. How often has it been said; “modern science disproves the Bible.”?

    Actually, NO! it doesn’t!
    Let us be “people of the Book”, and NOT “people of the Book plus mans theories added in”?
    Amen.

    1. Stephen

      Dear Colin, I’m trying to say that none of us is ‘left to God’s word alone’. We also have God-implanted curiosity, sight and reason. We read the news. I did not read in God’s word that two evangelists were acquitted in Bristol yesterday, but I was there and I saw it. You were not there, but I hope you will take my word and that of the Bristol Post for it. It will not make you any less a man of the Book.
      Rox of the Red Dragon may be right at some cursory level when he says of you: “He is only saying that if you ONLY read the Bible you would assume it was flat, and you would not know that it is a planet. That is true.” But of course you do not ‘ONLY’ read the Bible. You go out of doors and look at the sun going down, at the horizon, at the shadow across the moon. The good Lord is pleased that we do that.
      God has only listed the rules which he intends should govern human society in his word, not the laws he put in place to govern the physical realm. You see a reference to the laws of nature in Genesis 1:3 & 9:13, Psalm 19:1-6, Proverbs 8:22-30, Jeremiah 33:25, to pick just the most obvious. But you read nothing explicit of gravity, nor the electromagnetic force, nor the weak and strong atomic forces in God’s word. You do not read about Boyle’s law, nor the laws of thermodynamics, nor of Kepler’s laws. Yet by observation scientists have found them. It does not make them atheists. Many indeed were Christians. Their discovered laws do not contravene the Bible. (I am not speaking of the theory of evolution, which contravenes not just the Bible but reason and the law of biogenesis).
      You can be sure I take the Bible literally, but I will not force into my theology a partisan interpretation of ‘CHUG’ which contravenes the evidence of other parts of the Bible (the sun rising and setting for example) and my own eyes.

      1. Rox

        Dear Colin,

        I have politely hinted before at surprise that you have a computer, or believe that they exist. You really ought to belong to the Amish, one problem being that you would have to live in America, which according to the Bible does not exist.

        Still, you have got a computer and you do in practice seem to believe in countries discovered since the Bible was written. You say that you don’t know where exactly the sun goes when it disappears out of our sight under the horizon, All you need to do is to email somebody in Australia (or any of a number of other places), and you will find that they have got it there.

        I know that you are well aware that God saith in Genesis 1:14
        ” Let there be lights in the vault of the heavens …. God made two great lights, …. the lesser to govern the night”. (REB).
        Yet hath thou not noticed what is, I think, never mentioned in the Bible ? That sometimes the moon lurketh in the sky by day, like unto a cloud, and thus not really a light at all ? I have never seen this referred to in print, and only seen it in one painting. But most people notice it for themselves as children. Also, is the moon not dark when (with its curved edge shewn) it obscureth the great light of the sun ? How cometh it so to pass ?

        You insist on saying in your own sentences that God spake, rather than spoke, rather as if you insist on being frozen in 1611 , and yet by then Galileo’s work was well under way, never to be undone.

        Oddly enough you can read a brief account of Galileo’s treatment by the 17th century Roman Catholic Church (with whom, you must admit, you have most in common) in the preface of West Meets Islam ! The style of that book is loosely based on his “Dialogue concerning the Two Chief World Systems”. Recommended !
        https://www.amazon.co.uk/West-Meets-Islam-2nd-Edn/dp/1515348245/ref=la_B012E9E2IA_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1498832862&sr=1-2

        Now, Colin, the Authorised Version was not the first or last translation of the Bible into English. That translation is not God’s inalterable English language which you must not change. However, you feel you can’t depart from “the original” and must use “spake” even yourself, which most of us find very peculiar. The Quakers used “thou” for very many years for a different reason (to show their equality — it would still make sense even in modern French if they used tu to everybody, so Voltaire was perfectly happy with this concept and appreciated it).
        .
        But “spake” ? Why stop there, at early Elizabethan English ? Why not use Old English proper (Anglo-Saxon).
        Spæc.
        As in Genesis 8:15-18 :

        God ða spræc to Noe, ðus cweðende:
        Gang ut of ðam arce, ðu and Þinn wif and Þine suna and heora wif. And eal ðat ðær inne is mid ðe, læd ut mid ðe ofer eorðan, and weaxe ge and beoð gemænifylde ofer eorðan. Noe ða ut eode of ðam arce, and hi ealle ofer eorðan.

        There is a certain merit to this. Personally, I find ” Gang ut of ðam arce” less trickly than “Go forth of the ark”; also there is a pleasant simplicity to “And eal ðat ðær inne is mid ðe, læd ut mid ðe ofer eorðan”. (And all that there in is with thee, let out with thee over Earth) . Who elaborated on this in the AV verse 17 ? Also verse 18 is pared right down to essentials: “Noah then out went of the ark, and they all over Earth”.
        [ “weaxe ge and beoð gemænifylde” = “wax yourselves and be manifolded”, for those readers who haven’t worked this out ! Wax like the moon ].

        Good luck with this, Colin. It’s a lot more original and true than the New English Bible or its revised version (REB), and obviously that is the way you ought to talk all the time. If you go a little further north, they might understand you in the Faeroes.

        Rox Ddraig Goch, Rhydychen .

        1. Rox

          Any further replies need to be made quickly now, before Bilderberg falls over the Christian Earth cliff and off the Earth for ever, like a flat-earther in Antarctica who hasn’t grasped Colin’s Truth that Antarctica is infinite.

          Oh, sorry. Christian Voice is infinite too if you know the ropes. Just keep clicking the arrow on the left at the top to go further back; or you can click 7th June on the calendar. However far back you go, you will never find yourself back where you started, as far as I know. Perhaps Colin is right after all.

          And it’s no good clicking the arrow on the right to go into the future. The internet has its limitations. It would be fun, though, to write some prophetic articles for events which haven’t yet happened, like the Conservative and Labour conferences in Autumn 2017, and parliamentary sessions afterwards ….And two years after the triggering of Brexit …. And the appointment of the next Archbishop of Canterbury ….The downfall of Trump ….. Peace in the Middle East….. Newspapers keep the obituaries of ageing celebrities in stock (they may have one for Stephen Green), so why not ? What will happen to Ireland ?

          RDG

Leave a Reply