Nanaimo Wiccan Blog

The Lord's and Lady's prayer

Sat, 13 Aug 2011 21:19:00 -0400

Evocation of the Goddess

Priestess: “Blessed Goddess , ancient mother of us all, I evoke you and bid you welcome at our humble gathering. I call upon you now by the name known to my ancestors, Mother Goddess, protector of your children, know that you are welcome here.

I am the Great Mother, worshiped by all creation and existent prior to their consciousness, I am the primal female force, boundless and eternal. I am the chaste Goddess of the moon, the lady of all magic. The winds and moving leaves sing my name. I wear the crescent moon upon my brow and my feet rest among the starry heavens. I am mysteries yet unsolved, a path newly set upon. I am a field untouched by the plow. Rejoice in me and know the fullness of youth. I am the blessed Mother, the gracious lady of the harvest. I am clothed with the deep, cool wonder of the earth and the gold of the fields heavy with grain. By me the tides of the earth are ruled; all things come to fruition according to my season. I am refuge and healing. I am the life giving mother, wondrously fertile. Worship me as the crone, tender of the unbroken cycle of death and rebirth. I am the wheel, the shadow of the moon. I rule the tides of women and men and give release and renewal to weary souls. Though the darkness of death is my domain, the joy of birth is my gift. I am the Goddess of the moon, the earth, the seas, my names and strengths are manifold. I pour forth magic and power, peace and wisdom. I am the eternal Maiden, Mother of all, and Crone of darkness, and I send you blessing of limitless love.”

Evocation of the God

Priest: “Blessed God, ancient father of us all, I evoke you and bid you welcome at our humble gathering. I call upon you now by the name known to my ancestors, Father God, protector of your children, know that you are welcome here.

I am the radiant King of the heavens, flooding the earth with warmth and encouraging the hidden seed of creation to burst forth into manifestation. I lift my shining spear to light the lives of all beings and daily pour forth my gold upon the earth, putting to flight the powers of harm. I am the master of the beasts wild and free. I run with the swift stag and soar as a sacred falcon against the shimmering sky. The ancient woods and wild places emanate my powers, and the birds of the air sing of my sanctity. Worship me as the thousand name sun of creation, the spirit of the horned stag in the wild, the endless harvest. See in the yearly cycles of festivals my birth, death, and rebirth and know that such is the destiny of all creation. I am the spark of life, the radiant sun, the giver of peace and rest, and I send my rays of blessings to warm the hearts and strengthen the minds of all.”

The Nature of God

Thu, 04 Aug 2011 22:25:00 -0400

One of the images I have that illustrates my view of God…

Imagine, if you will, a wheel with spokes. The hub of the wheel is God. The tyre is the effect of God. The spokes are what connect what we see and experience, the effect of God, with that which is God.

The spoke on the left represents what may be viewed as the “classical” relationship, that of God<->Human. God is a separate being with whom we must relate. Above and below that are more spokes that denote more relationship descriptions of God. There is a spoke on one side for “God the Father”. There is another spoke on the other side for “God the Mother”. As we move further from the left spoke we add more specific and perhaps less known relationships; God the sister and brother, the lover, the friend, the teacher, the student, the husband, the wife, the messenger, the accuser, the judge, the servant, etc. As we move up and down the wheel toward the top and bottom spokes we come to those relationships which are the named Gods; Zeus, Jehovah (or Yahweh, or whatever vowels you are currently inserting), Danu, Isis, Osiris, Yang-ti, Shiva, etc.

The spoke on the right represents the concept of God as all. Everything is God and God is everything. Our relationship with God is as being a part of God. Above and below that are more spokes that denote more specific descriptions of the makeup of God; God is the Sun, the Moon, the Earth. As we move further from the right spoke we add more specific and perhaps less known aspects of the nature of God; God the winds, the sea, the mountains, fire, the rocks, the trees, the river Boyne, the mount Olympus, the North wind. As we move up and down the wheel toward the top and bottom spokes we come to those attributes which are the named Gods; the Titans, the Jotnar, the Olympians, The Fomorans, The Aesir, Balor, Ra, Jehovah, etc.

Now imagine that the spokes of the wheel all multiply in number until they are a solid disk, the hub expands until it encompasses all, and the tyre encircles all in a continuous, eternal spiral to the centre.

That, to me, is God.

The Worth of Belief

Sat, 11 Jun 2011 17:48:37 -0400

How often have you found yourself in a discussion with an fundie of one religion or another, and heard the following phrase, or one like it.

“It’s not about belief, It’s about the truth! This is what God says in His holy word. It is absolute truth and anything else is false.”

It seems the more absolutist a religion is, the more it’s adherents fear those two little words… “I believe”. What is it about the idea of belief that causes them such angst? Do they not understand the difference between what is believed and what can be proven objectively? Well, in reality, its not that they cannot understand the difference, but rather they will not understand it. Allow me to expand on that.

Each theist of us holds our faith to be “the truth”. Each of us has exactly the same amount of objective evidence to show that our faith is true and others are false…none.
Each of us believes we speak to the Divine. Each of us has a personal and intimate relationship with the Divine. Each of us is sure of our final destination.

The phrasing most often used by Fundamentalist Exclusivist religions is one that says “I am right by default. Mine is the only religion any sane person would hold. Your faith is foolish.” It intimates that they are in a position of proven veracity that none of the rest of us can meet. It claims an objectivity and a credibility over other faiths that is unmerited and unsupportable. It is the religious equivalent of “1+1=3, and anyone who believes otherwise is an idiot”.

It is also counterproductive. It isn’t a terribly good tool for witnessing to people of other faiths, or even no faith. At best people in modern times, who have dealt with at least one used car salesman, can easily see when they’ve been fed an unsupported claim of truth, a “sales pitch” if you will. At worst it drives people away from what is supposed to be the goal, to “win souls”. When dealing with other people of faith you have to keep one thing in mind; they hold their faith as dearly as you hold yours. If you try to lead off by telling them how wrong they are you will drive them away from your God. Now if you aim is simply to “preach the gospel” then that isn’t a problem I suppose, but if your aim is to spread the knowledge of your God in order that others might be “saved”, then you are working against your God. You simply cannot insult someone into your religion.

The saddest part is how unnecessary it is. In my considerable time as a Fundamentalist Christian I saw many types of “witnessing”. The most successful witnesses are not those who go around saying “I’m right, your wrong, and if you don’t accept my God it’s your own damn fault for burning in Hell”. The most successful witnesses are those who say “I believe”.

Those two words, “I believe” are some of the most powerful in the English language. They are statements of faith. They are acknowledgments of truth, as we see it. They are affirmations of a stance that cannot be moved. They are pillars of strength of commitment of heart and soul to the Divine.

They are also inviting words. They are inclusive of people without being lukewarm of faith. They are words that bring people to the table instead of driving them away. They are words which say “I am secure enough in my faith, that I can listen to and understand why you have your faith.”

Some people might say that using “I believe” is wishy-washy, that it is denying “the truth”, that people who use it are relativists, or even worse they are *gasp* liberals…

To them I say, “not so”. The person who uses those words is truly strong in his faith. The person who uses those words is one of the few who actually understands what faith is. Faith is not proven fact, it is unproven fact. 1+1=2 is not a matter of faith, but the Love of the Divine is. “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” The person who uses “I believe” truly understands this, and this is what the Divine desires of us. All faiths have a dictum which generally follows “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”

We are not called to prove the unprovable, to verify the unverifiable, to make boasting of our faith, or to work through vain claims that we cannot support. We are not called to boast about how right we are. We are called, each person of faith, to simply believe, and to “and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear”.

That is the real worth and value of why “I believe”.

Love Dance of the Lord and Lady

Wed, 18 May 2011 13:51:51 -0400

I wrote this article after witnessing the eclipse of June 10th, 2002.

I went down to the park this evening, looking to observe an astronomical event of some rarity. An eclipse, even an annular one, is not an event for any Witch to take lightly. The last two eclipses observable from here were both overcast and hidden from mortal view. With the next solar eclipse not due until 2012 and the clouds resting from their tyranny I was determined to see this most awe inspiring of celestial events.

Down to the park I went, Stang in hand and drum slung over one shoulder. I couldn’t help but wonder how many of my Fathers before me had taken this same trek, down a lonely path to greet the planetary dance. We know that the Celts, and many other ancient cultures, made accurate astronomical calculations of the trajectory of Sun and Moon. One can only suppose they must have been aware when these would intersect, but I digress.

I arrived at my customary space in time to catch the first sliver of coincidence of the two great spheres of our beloved couple. As I looked through darkened glass that shut out everything save the blazing glory of the Sun I marveled at the scene before me. As I lowered the glass I noticed a group of Elders watching me. I walked over to them and saw that they were mentally challenged on the one hand, and gloriously old on the other. I offered the ladies that were their care givers to let them see the eclipse through my glass. As each in turn brought the glass to their eyes they called out in wonder, as if a child seeing all of creation for the first time. Each took their turn, each patiently waiting for the others to finish, each marveling at a vision they had never seen before and would not likely live to see again. Through it all the Lord and Lady continued to dance, dance for the love of those blessed Elders and for each other.

I left those souls with smiles and beacon-ed eyes and climbed back to my spot. I watched for a while, and drummed, and meditated and watched. As I saw the great occlusion progressing I became aware of an energy, a feeling, a gentle touch upon my soul. The feeling was familiar, raw and exciting and yet comforting and benign. This emotive calling was achingly familiar and yet dissociative, as if I were experiencing emotions not my own, but resembling those I had owned in the past, and recently.

Suddenly it dawned on me. What I was experiencing; what I was seeing before my eyes and into my soul, was the lovemaking of our Lord and Lady. This cosmic dance, so rare and beautiful, was the consummation of passion of lovers on a scale unfathomable by Mortal Beings. Each day they pass, reaching out to one another, barely brushing fingers outstretched. Longing for the rarest and most breathtaking lover’s touch which is denied to them through long years of waiting, waiting. Today then is the time, ordained from the pattern of inundate on the floor of the universe when first the cauldron of life was overturned. Today then is the time that hope and longing, hunger and passion, grasp hold of the moment. With joyous abandon they come together, each merging with the other, light and darkness, life and death, passion and fury, warmth and cool, cool, release.

As the dancers whirl and grasp I drum. As the heavens dim in awe of the spectacle I drum. As my heart beats and surges and thunders, synchronised to the ebullition that surrounds me I drum. As the last cosmic paroxysm gasps out the name of love I drum, quietly, slowly. As the lovers recline in each others arms and slowly separate, and with one final kiss, release to go about their stellar journey, I drum. Tears of joy and sadness fall upon the drum head, adding their staccato rhythm to the brush of my hands on skin and I remember. I remember the thrill of skin on skin and the soft trembling voice of my own Sylph, my own Earth Faery. And I drum.

I gather my things then, and leave the lovers in the afterglow of lengthening shadows. I am spent as if I had run the course myself. I ponder the mystery I have been privy to. This is the Great Rite in its most quintessential incarnation. This is the dance of life on a scale that will not be repeated for another decade. I have been privy to an act of love so fundamental that the memory of all my Fathers before me have culminated in this one act, this one union, this one Loving Embrace of Moon Goddess and Sun God. I am well and truly Blessed.

An Eye for an Eye: An Historical Perspective

Tue, 17 May 2011 13:08:00 -0400

Most people believe that the the phrase “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth” is a Christian edict, or perhaps more accurately Hebrew. Still others will point to the fact that this rule is contained in the Code of Hammurabi, which predates Hebrew writings. Interestingly enough the phrase is actually older even than that. It originates in Madagascar and is somewhat altered from the original phrase, “An Aye-Aye for an eye”.

The tradition comes about as a result of the believed sinister nature of the animal by the natives of Madagascar. The Aye-Aye is a medium sized Lemur that resides only on that island off the east coast of Africa.

“The aye-aye has coarse, shaggy black fur with a mantle of white guard hairs. It is a medium-sized nocturnal lemur weighing about 3 kg (6.6 lb). The aye-aye is found in a variety of forest types in Madagascar. Its varied diet includes insect grubs, fruits, nuts, nectar, seeds and fungi. It is also known to raid coconut plantations. The aye-aye is a nocturnal forager. Most of the night is spent traveling and foraging in the upper canopy. The day is spent sleeping in a nest constructed in a tree from interwoven twigs and dead leaves. Large trees may contain as many as six nests. Although the aye-aye is generally solitary, males and females occasionally come together outside of breeding periods and interact briefly, often when foraging. Both males and females may mate with several partners.”
http://www.animalinfo.org/species/primate/daubmada.htm

“In some parts of Madagascar, the aye-aye is regarded as a harbinger of evil and killed on sight (The Sakalava believe that the aye-aye enters houses during the night through thatched roofs and murders the sleeping human occupants. It supposedly uses its elongated finger to cut the aortic vein of its victims.
(Goodman & Schütz 2000))”

The natives believed that two good eyes were necessary to protect oneself from the dreaded Aye-Aye. This allowed one to sleep with one eye open to keep an eye out for the Aye-Aye. If a person struck out the eye of another, especially the right eye which was considered the best eye to keep open, and thus known as the Aye-Aye eye, that person must make amends by taking the eye of a live Aye-Aye and giving it to the victim, who otherwise could not sleep with one Aye-Aye eye
open.

To take the eye of a live Aye-Aye was no mean feat. The nocturnal and tree-dwelling Aye-Aye was almost impossible to catch in the canopy which it calls home. Thus the hunt was made into a village affair wherein the guilty party was assisted by the entire village. The hunt was conducted under the supervision of a seasoned chief who was almost always one-eyed himself, and known as the Aye-Aye Captain. It is thought that the participation of the whole village to ameliorate the crime helped repair relationships damaged by the incident.

As the tradition spread to other lands it became increasingly difficult to honour it, as increasing distance caused more and more of a burden on the entire village. By the time Hammurabi considered adding the tradition to his code of laws it was practically impossible to fulfill this geas for the average Babylonian. Thus Hammurabi was quoted as saying “What a crock! And what the Apsu is an Aye-Aye anyway?”. Being a practical, albeit unimaginative man, he had the phrase changed to it’s present form and codified into law.

P.S.
Another well known tradition comes from the natural behaviour of the Aye-Aye.

“The aye-aye is different from the other lemurs because it is highly specialized in many ways; …and its long skeleton-like middle finger used to extract larvae from holes. (Mittermeier et al. 1994)”

Naturalists have also observed the Aye-Aye hunting the young of certain predatory birds. The Aye-Aye hides beneath the nest where the mother bird cannot see, to avoid being attacked by said mother bird, and probing the nest with it’s long and slender middle finger protruding from a clenched fist. If the Aye-Aye encounters a fledgling it flips the unfortunate creature out of the nest and consumes it.

The natives of Madagascar emulated this behaviour with a similar gesture involving a clenched fist and extended middle finger probing the air in a signal meant to say “I wish the Aye-Aye had got you when you were hatched”. The gesture has come to us with a similar meaning of ill-will and is known as “flipping the bird”.

P.P.S
The second half of the phrase in question, “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth” also has it’s origins outside the middle east. It was originally a prescription for a herbal remedy for toothache. Vermouth, an herbal infused wine from European countries, often contained wormwood, a powerful analgesic that is particularly effective in alleviating the pain of toothache.

“The firm Martini & Rossi is the world’s largest producer of Vermouth. “Martini and Rossi” was founded only in 1863, but vermouth - or something very much like it - dates back nearly to the threshold of history itself. Early Mediterranean cultures are known to have improved the flavor of their date and grape wines with honey, resins, and a host of herbs and spices included pepper, cinnamon and ginger.

Besides tasting dandy and raising the spirits of people who drunk them, many of these wines were though to promote good health when combined with specific leaves and blossoms.

One of the most popular classic botanical additives was wormwood (Artemisia Absinthum), a herb related to tarragon and sagebrush and prized in many cultures for its curative powers as well as its ability to stimulate appetite and aid digestion. Because wormwood was an important ingredient, the beverage became known as wermut- from the German word for the herb. Soon it was gallicized to vermout; and eventually, somewhere along the line, the h was tacked on to the end.”
about.com

Thus the entire saying, etymologically traced to it’s origins, should read something along the lines of…

“An Aye-Aye for an eye, and some vermouth for that tooth.”

{with apologies to James Fraser}

Witch Word Study

Mon, 16 May 2011 17:30:00 -0400

Dear Christians:

The etymology of the word “Witch” is quite well known. It is Saxon in origin and originally referred to practitioners of The Celtic, Saxon, and Norse religions. The word is derived from the Saxon word “wicce” (pronounced wit-cha), from which is derived the Old English “Witche”, and the more modern word “Wicca”. These “Witches”were the solitary Village healers and spiritual leaders and were apart from the organized religious structure such as the Druids.

The words used in the Old testament and incorrectly translated as “Witch” refer to the practice of some Hebrew Mystics of the time who used “magic” to curse and harm others. The Hebrews had no contact with the Celts or Saxons and so it is ridiculous to think that your God would have warned the Hebrews to kill people they would never have met. The new testament Greek refers to poisoners, not Witches. Witches historically were healers, not killers, and were well respected and sought after.

The use of the word “Witch” to mean any mystical practice that is not Christian is a result of the Witch Panic of the late middle ages, from which King James made much profit and derived no small amount of personal pleasure (more on this later). Christian missionaries continued the practice of labeling anything as Witchcraft even if it had no correspondence with actual Celtic or Saxon Witches.

I can imagine a scene a couple of hundred years ago when the first Christian Missionaries were invading Africa.

“Kimibi, tell those people in that village that we have come to enlighten them.”

“Yes Bwana, but they won’t like it, they already consider themselves enlightened.”

“Well they don’t have much choice, we’ll save their souls if it kills them. What is that man doing there?”

“Bwana, that man is the Village spiritual leader. He is performing the rituals of the faith of these people. It is called, in their language, Ixpltl.”

“Oh, you mean witchcraft.”

“What is ‘witchcraft’ Bwana?”

“That what they are doing.”

“Strange Bwana, I don’t think it has anything to do with the ancient rituals and traditions of Northern European peoples, but hey, you’re the missionary”

Let’s say, hypothetically, that the early Hebrews had some people with a gambling problem. Perhaps God might have said “thou shalt not suffer those with a gambling problem to live”. If King James then said, “hey… Druids sometimes gamble.” and proceeded to have it translated “thou shalt not suffer a Druid to live.” would this mean the bible tells you to kill druids? Of course not. Nor would you be justified in calling anyone anywhere who gambles a Druid. But that is basically the sort of thing that happened with the word “Witch”.

There are several pieces of evidence that show how the word “witch” was not in the original manuscripts of the Bible, nor any word that could reasonably be translated as “witch”. The Hebrew word which is translated as “witch in the King James version is “Kashaph” which, according to Hebrew Scholars, means a person who uses sorcery or poison to harm others.We can see from the following that even before King James time the etymology of the word was known.

From The Discoverie of Witchcraft by Sir Reginald Scott. King James attempted to have all copies of Sir Scott’s book destroyed as it contradicted his need to have the word “witch” in the bible (more on that later). Fortunately the book was already in third printing

[quote]BOOKE VI
Chapter I - The exposition of this Hebrue word Chasaph, wherein is answered the objection conteined in Exodus 22. to wit: Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live, and of Simon Magus. Acts. 8. page 64) Chaspah, being a Hebrue word, is Latined Veneficium, and is in English, poisoning, or witchcraft; if you will so have it. The Hebrue sentence written in Exodus, 22. is by the 70. interpretors translated thus into Greeke, (sorry-unprintable), which in Latine is, Veneficos (sive) veneficas non retinebitis in vita , in English, You shall not suffer anie poisoners, or (as it is translated) witches to live. The which sentence Josephus an Hebrue borne, and a man of great estimation, learning and fame, interpreteth in this wise; Let none of the children of Israel have any poison that is deadlie, or preparted to anie hurtfull use. If anie be apprehended with such stuffe, let him be put to dfeath, and suffer that which he meant to doo to them, for whom he prepared it. The Rabbins exposition agree heerewithall. Lex Cornelia differeth not from this sense, to wit, that he must suffer to death, which either maketh, selleth, or hath anie poison, to the intent to kill anie man. This word is found in these places following: Exodus. 22, Deut. 18, 10. 2 Sam. 9, 22. Dan. 2,2. 2 Chr. 33, 6. Eay. 47, 9, 12. Malach, 3,5. Jerem. 27, 9, Mich. 5, 2. Nah. 3,4. bis. Howbeit, in all our English translations, Chaspah is translated, witchraft. [/quote]

The New testament word translated as “witch” is actually pharmakeia which means one who uses poisons or drugs. It is the root from which we get our English word “Pharmacy”. Of course those Concordances that focus primarily on KJAV will list both words as meaning Witch but that is simply because the KJAV does. Most other translations, most of which are considered more accurate, do not use the word Witch. Here is a cross section reprinted from The Ontario Consultants for religious tolerance.

Interpretation of 19 English translations of Exodus 22:18
Various Biblical translations render this verse as:

American Standard Version “Thou shalt not suffer a sorceress to live.”
The Answer: Put to death any woman who does evil magic.
Amplified Bible: You shall not allow a woman to live who practices sorcery.
Good News Version: Put to death any woman who practices magic.
James Moffatt Translation: You shall not allow any sorceress to live.
Jerusalem Bible: You shall not allow a sorceress to live.
King James Version: Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
Living Bible: A sorceress shall be put to death.
Modern Language Bible: Allow no sorceress to live.
New American Bible: You shall not let a sorceress live.
New American Standard Bible: You shall not let a sorceress live.
New Century Version: Put to death any woman who does evil magic.
New International Version: Do not allow a sorceress to live.
New Living Translation: A sorceress must not be allowed to live.
New Revised Standard Version: You shall not permit a female sorcerer to live.
New World Translation: You must not preserve a sorceress alive.
The Promise: Contemporary English Version: Death is the punishment for witchcraft.
Revised Standard Version: You shall not permit a sorceress to live.
Revised English Bible: You must not allow a witch to live.

In the original Hebrew manuscript, the author used the word m’khashepah to describe the person who should be killed. The word means a woman who uses spoken spells to harm others - e.g. causing their death or loss of property. Clearly “evil sorceress” or “woman who does evil magic” would be the most accurate phrases in current common English usage for this verse.

Interpretation of 22 English Translations of Galatians 5:19-20 Various translations of the Christian Scriptures render this verse as a list of “acts of the sinful nature”, or “works of the flesh” and specify the following practices:

American Standard Version: fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery…”
The Answer: “being sexually unfaithful, not being pure, taking part in sexual sins, worshipping gods, doing witchcraft….”
Amplified Bible: “immorality, impurity, indecency, idolatry, sorcery…”
Authentic New Testament: “adultery, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery…”
Good News Version: “immoral, filthy and indecent actions; in worship of idols and witchcraft…”
James Moffatt Translation: “sexual vice, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, magic…”
Jerusalem Bible: “fornication, gross indecency and sexual irresponsibility; idolatry and sorcery…”
King James Version: “adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft…”
Living Bible: “impure thoughts, eagerness for lustful pleasure, idolatry, spiritism (that is, encouraging the activity of demons),…”
Modern Language Bible: “immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, magic arts…”.
New American Bible: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery…”
New American Standard Bible: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery…”
New Century Version: being sexually unfaithful, not being pure, taking part in sexual sins, worshipping false gods, doing witchcraft…”
New International Version: “sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft…”
New Living Translation: sexual immorality, impure thoughts. eagerness for lustful pleasure, idolatry, participation in demonic activities….”
New Revised Standard Version: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery…”
New Testament & Psalms: An Inclusive Version: “fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery…”
New World Translation: fornication, uncleanness, loose conduct, idolatry, practice of spiritism…”
The Promise: Contemporary English Version: “immoral ways, impure thoughts, and shameful deeds. They worship idols, practice witchcraft…”
Rheims New Testament: “fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury, idolatry, witchcrafts…”
Revised Standard Version: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery…”
Revised English Bible: “fonication, indecency, and debauchery; idolatry and sorcery…”
The key word of interest here is the Greek word “pharmakia” from which the English words “pharmacy” “pharmaceuticals,” and “pharmacology” are derived. Interpreted literally, it refers to the practice of preparing poisonous potions to harm or kill others.

So it seems that most modern translations of the bible agree that the words should not be translated as Witch. The KJAV seems to be in conflict with scholars of both it’s contemporary and more modern times.

The time-line for the words also do not fit. The word “witch” is derived from various Celtic and Saxon roots which mean variously “to bend” or “wisdom”. According to the Scofield Reference Bible this verse from the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) was written in the year 1491 BCE. This is some 650 years before the origin of the Celtic people circa 850 BCE. Add to this that “Witch” refers specifically to practitioners of a set of ancient Northern European and British religions whom the Hebrews would have had no chance of encountering then it becomes clear that GOD was warning them about something other than a “Witch”.

So why was the word changed to “Witch”? Two reasons are given by historians.

1. King James was not a very morally solid man even by the standards of his days. As well as being a sadist and homosexual he had a tendency toward underhanded dealings. He believed in the “divine right of Kings”, in other words Kings were not subject to laws but answerable only to God. The bible in use by common people of the day, the Geneva Bible, contained what is known as marginal notes, something like a side-by-side concordance and commentary. Many of these marginal notes were critical of Monarchs who followed their own version of morality as did King James. He decreed that the Bishops’ Bible, a more politically correct version used by the upper Clergy and lacking marginal notes, be used as the basis for a new translation. The “Authorized” version was to follow the Bishops Bible with as little alteration as possible. The Bishops Bible was criticized by scholars of the time as being less correctly translated than the Geneva Bible.

2. King James Made a considerable sum of money as the Chief Magistrate by accusing people of Witchcraft. The Chief Magistrate was entitled to seize the property and holdings of those accused of Witchcraft. If the person was convicted, which they always were under King James,…

[quote]One “witch,” Barbara Napier, was acquitted. That event so angered James that he wrote personally to the court on May 10, 1551, ordering a sentence of death, and had the jury called into custody. To make sure they understood their particular offense, the King himself presided at a new hearing - and was gracious enough to release them without punishment when they reversed their verdict. (Global Insights) [/quote]

…the Chief Magistrate was permitted to keep the property and holdings. King James apparently enjoyed the spectacle of torture as well. He personally supervised the torture of many of the accused and even wrote papers suggesting and devising new methods of torture. It was definitely to his advantage to make sure his “authorized” version of the bible specifically contained the word “Witch” as that was the commonly used word surviving in Britain from the time when Witches were the Village healers and Spiritual leaders, before Christianity.

So as we see from historical and biblical perspectives the word “witch” was inserted into the bible in order to persecute Witches in Britain. We can see that there are no words in the original Greek and Hebrew in the bible that can reasonably be translated as “Witch”. We also see that most modern translations of the bible, barring those which are merely language modernizations of the KJV, correctly translate the words as being other than “witch”.

I hope that clears up the misconception that the bible condemns Witches by name. Of course the bible forbids Christians from practicing divination etc, but that is a different matter entirely.