I'm standing under a statue just opposite the River Thames, and the name just above
my head is William Tyndale.
This 16th century Oxford and Cambridge educated intellect and martyr was skilled
in Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Italian, Spanish, English and French, speaking each
of them just as fluently as each other, an exceptional rare feat in his day.
He has single-handedly played one of the most lasting and influential contributions
to English culture by translating the Bible from Greek and Hebrew into English,
whose wording and phraseology contributed to the English language.
His nemesis Sir Thomas More, whose statue stands in Chelsea, had Tyndale's Bible
burned as well as those who purchased them, which shows the great contempt and
hatred the First Kingdom had, and still has, for the Bible.
But Tyndale's impact was powerful, and it was to grow.
William Whitaker was a 16th century Oxford educated Cambridge professor who was
indebted to Tyndale's Bible.
He published a book in 1588 titled Disputations on Holy Scripture as a
rebuttal to the Italian Jesuit St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, who, like Sir Thomas
More, attempted to discredit the Bible.
William Whitaker said, Among these Jesuits, Robert Bellarmine, a native of
Italy, we learn that the Scriptures are no rule of faith at all.
Hence the Jesuit concludes that the Scriptures are obscure.
William Whitaker takes Bellarmine to task and defends the authority of the Bible.
He says for it is not enough to know the words, the letter, or the history,
but a full persuasion is required.
This is what David sought, that he might more and more progress in true
understanding and faith.
This was down to William Tyndale's translation and in the following century
the battle rages on.
Madame Helena Petrovna Blavatsky was a 19th century Russian occultist who founded
a Theosophical Society and was one of the chief pioneers of the New Age movement.
But even in her lucifering and glorifying blasphemous statements, she found the
Jesuits the most repulsive and dangerous men on earth.
And in her book, Isis Unveiled Volume 2, she says that the Jesuits have done more
moral harm in this world than all the Finnish armies of the mythical Satan.
Every one of the statements which follows in quotation marks are extracted from
authenticated manuscripts or folios printed by this distinguished body.
She quotes from a 17th century Spanish Jesuit priest, Anthony Escobar Mendoza,
and you can get a picture why the Jesuits were so hated not just by the Protestants,
but by everyone they came into contact with.
Anthony Escobar says, It is lawful to make use of the science acquired through the
assistance of the devil, provided the preservation and use of that knowledge do
not depend upon the devil, for the knowledge is good in itself, and the sin
by which it was acquired has gone by.
This was the mind of a Jesuit, and we will show you that nothing has
changed.
In that same period, the 17th century Cambridge educated Bible scholar,
the English Puritan Thomas Goodwin, who was a chaplain to Oliver Cromwell and
the president of Magdalen College at the University of Oxford, said, That to one
who resolves to fear God and obey him, the name of God is an all-sufficient prop
and stay for his faith to rest on, where he sees nothing in himself or in any
promise in the world belonging to him.
You can see the striking contrast between the papacy and the reformation.
Rome does not like the authority of the Bible, and as it builds, you will see how
the world will fall under her deceptive spell.
Englishman John Wesley was a true 18th century reformer in an era known as the
Great Awakening.
As the founder of the Methodist movement, he wrote a book titled The Explanatory
Notes upon the New Testament that was a guide in helping people have a clear
understanding of the Bible.
He said, The scripture, therefore, of the Old and New Testament is a most
solid and precious system of divine truth.
Every part thereof is worthy of God, and altogether are one entire body wherein
is no defect, no excess.
It is the fountain of heavenly wisdom, which they who are able to taste prefer to
all writings of men, however wise or learned or holy.
But Rome views the inspiration of the Bible as ridiculous.
Johann Gottfried Eichhorn was a German Protestant theologian who is famous for
leading the rationalistic crusade against the Bible that he titled the Higher
Criticism.
But his critique against the Bible was inspired before him by a French Catholic
physician named Jean Astruc who, during the time when John Wesley was
advocating the word of God, he was discrediting its divine inspiration.
In the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 4, the papacy is open that she
leads the charge in Biblical criticism.
She is open and she is barefaced.
In 1753, Jean Astruc, a French Catholic physician of considerable note,
published a little book.
This is written in French, which the narrator will not attempt to pronounce,
in which he conjectured from the alternating use of two names of God in the
Hebrew Genesis that Moses had incorporated therein two pre-existing documents,
one of which employed Elachim and the other Jehovah.
The idea attracted little attention till it was taken up by a German scholar who
however claimed to have made the discovery independently.
This was Johann Gottfried Eichhorn.
Eichhorn is the first typical representative of modern Biblical
criticism, the especial home of which has been Germany.
Yet it was a Catholic priest of Scottish origin, Alexander Geddes, who breached a
theory of the origin of the five books to which he attached Joshua, exceeding in
boldness either Simon's or Eichhorn's.
This was the well-known fragment hypothesis, which reduced the Pentateuch
to a collection of fragmentary sections partly of Mosaic origin, but put together
in the reign of Solomon.
Geddes' opinion was introduced into Germany in 1805 by Vader.
The first kingdom is a bit more bold, for in the first edition of the Catholic
Encyclopedia, in volume 12, it says that the supremacy of the Bible as a source of
faith is unhistorical, illogical, fatal to the virtue of faith, and
destructive of unity.
It is unhistorical.
This is what the Catholic Church says about the Bible.
In the 19th century, the struggle continued.
In the best-documented work on the Reformation, The History of Protestantism,
Volume 1, the prolific writer and Scotsman, James Aitken Wiley, documents
the papacy's hostility to the Bible from its inception.
It is true, no doubt, that Protestantism, strictly viewed, is simply a principle.
It is not a policy.
It is not an empire having its fleets and armies, its officers and tribunals,
who wish to extend its dominion and make its authority be obeyed.
It is not even a church with its hierarchies and synods and edicts.
It is simply a principle.
They replace the authority of the infallibility with the authority of the
Word of God.
Rome did not give us the Bible.
She did all in her power to keep it from us.
She retained it under the seal of a dead language, and when others broke that seal
and threw open its pages to all, she stood over the book and, unsheathing
her fiery sword, would permit none to read the message of life, save at the peril of
eternal anathema.
Rome has always been more lenient to sceptical than to evangelical views.
In that same century, two highly respected Catholic intellectuals verified what Wiley
said.
In West London is a statue of Cardinal John Henry Newman, an Anglican convert to
Catholicism, who was beatified by Pope Benedict XVI in 2010.
He wrote a book called Arians of the Fourth Century, which was nothing more
than paganism in a Christian mass, and he said,
Going across the Atlantic, the Irish-American Catholic prelate James
Cardinal Gibbons, Bishop of Baltimore, wrote a book in 1876 titled The Faith of
Our Fathers.
Like Abelamine and Jean Astrup before him, he discredits the authority of the Bible.
The scriptures alone do not contain all the truths which a Christian is bound to
believe, nor do they explicitly enjoin all the duties which he is obliged to
practice.
We must, therefore, conclude that the scriptures alone cannot be a sufficient
guide and ruler of faith, because they cannot at any time be within the reach of
every inquirer, because they are not of themselves clear and intelligible even in
matters of the highest importance, and because they do not contain all the
truths necessary for salvation.
That same spirit of heresy, the rejection of the divine inspiration of the Bible,
got its boost with a man whose caricature overlooks the main hall of London's
Natural History Museum.
His name is Charles Darwin.
And this naturalist has been hailed as a great thinker, when his unscientific,
anti-human, contradictory thesis is not original in the slightest.
He published a book in 1859 titled The Origin of Species.
But as you open it up, it is actually called The Origin of Species by Means of
Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggles for Life.
I can entertain, no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate
judgment of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists until
recently entertained, and which I formally entertained, namely that each species has
been independently created, is erroneous.
So there is absolutely no difference between Darwinism and the Papacy.
They both reject the authority of the word and teach a trust in man and nature.
And J.A.
Wiley's prophetic critique of Papacy is accurate.
Your average person has never heard of the late Pierre Teilhard de Chardin,
a French paleontologist and Jesuit priest.
It has been proven that he is the most sought-after writer in New Age and occult
circles.
He attempted to blend Pantheism and Christianity together and has influenced
some of the most influential globalists in the world.
The late Dr. Aurelio Picchi, an Italian industrialist who founded the Club of
Rome, was a student of the teachings of this Jesuit and used his pantheistic
philosophy in his book Mankind at the Turning Point.
The late Robert Muller was a Catholic New Age lawyer-economist and former UN
Assistant Secretary General, and in his book New Genesis, shaping a global
spirituality, he is also a student of the teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.
And Marshall Macaulay, the Canadian philosopher of communication theory,
who has been titled the Oracle of the Electronic Age, who coined the phrases the
medium is a message and the global village, was also a student of the
pantheistic teachings of the Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.
He was an outward-staunch Marxist, being the intellectual godfather of
liberation theology, but he was also a Darwinist who said that evolution is a
condition to which all theories must bow, a curve all lines must follow.
The highest-ranking Jesuit on earth, Friar Adolfo Nicholas, the Superior
General of the Jesuits, sometimes referred to as the Black Pope, defends Jesuit
scientists and says that the Jesuits are accused by Bible-believing Christians,
who he labels as Puritans, as being too worldly.
If there is anything that we, sometimes, we are accused by more Puritan Christians,
we are accused of something is of being too much in the world, you know,
but I think this is there from the very beginning, from Saint Ignatius.
That's why we have so many Jesuit scientists and so many Jesuit astronomers.
The late Avram Manhattan, one of the few 20th century intellectual investigative
writers, wrote a book that was published in 1967 titled Catholic Power Today,
where he shows that the Vatican's Jesuit scientists want to control and influence
the whole of modern science.
Dozens of Jesuits were earning doctorates in space sciences or cooperating with
laymen in space research centers in many parts of the United States.
The Jesuits' prophecy, in all probability, will be fulfilled, thus proving,
if proof there need be, that no field of human activity, from the sly promotion of
asinine superstitions to the latest advanced space exploits, is neglected by
the ceaseless vigilance of the Catholic Church.
Everything on earth, even outside the earth, is her rightful target in the
continuous aggrandizement of her dominion.
Was this a loose statement from Avram Manhattan?
Or are they actually a high number of Jesuit astronomers who would like to have
a mass influence on how the world views science?
There are so many ways for people to get involved in the Vatican Observatory
Foundation.
You don't need to be a scientist or an astrophysicist or even a Jesuit to
appreciate the work that they do.
And many of the videos are posted online at the Foundation website, which are easy
interpretations for lay people of what the Jesuit scientists are doing.
The Vatican Observatory Foundation is a way that astronomy becomes not what
they're doing, but what we're doing.
It's a direct way that they can share in the fun, the excitement, and the wonder of
the discoveries that we're making.
These Jesuits have become so influential that they are doing lectures at the Human
Rights Forum, TED.
But looking at their past track record, do the Jesuits want to glorify God?
The Jesuit friar George Cohen, in an interview with the anti-religious
Bill Maher, discredits the Bible.
The reason is simply historical facts.
I mean, John Paul II, for instance, said evolution in a neo-Darwinian sense is
no longer a mere hypothesis.
I mean, he said that Christian scriptures were written between about 2,000 years
before Christ to about 200 years after Christ.
That's it.
Modern science came to be with Galileo, up through Newton, up through Einstein,
what we know as modern science, okay, is in that period.
How in the world could there be any science in scripture?
There cannot be.
Just the two historical periods are separated by so much.
The scriptures are not teaching science.
It's very hard for me to accept not just a literal interpretation of scripture,
but a fundamentalist approach to religious belief.
So he says the Bible has no science.
Did not the 8th century BC prophet Isaiah say, it is he that sits upon the circle of
the earth, confirming that the earth is spherical and globular in shape?
Did not the patriarch Job say that he stretches out the north over the empty
place and hangeth the earth upon nothing, verifying that the earth is suspended on
its own in space?
Did not the same patriarch Job, when describing God's mighty hand in
creating the universe, say, which maketh Arcturus, that is the brightest star in
the northern celestial hemisphere, Orion, the most recognized constellation
in the night sky, and Pleiades, the seventh star of the nearest star
cluster to earth and the chambers of the south?
Did not the king Solomon teach us to study and to learn from nature, when he said,
Go to the ant, thou sluggard, consider her ways, and be wise, which having no guide,
overseer, provideth her meat in the summer, and gareth her food in the
harvest?
What Bible is this Jesuit reading?
He then comes more bolder in an interview with the most famous atheist on earth,
Richard Dawkins, and clearly shows the Jesuit position on the origins of life.
Could you then tell us what your own position as George Coyne is on evolution
and intelligent design?
My position as George Coyne, and I think it represents a significant number of
Catholic scientists, is the following.
That the best scientific explanation we have of the origin of the universe and
everything in the universe, including all living systems and ourselves, is by what I
call Neo-Darwinian evolution.
And I think we all know what we mean by that.
That is, that the whole theory of Darwin modernized with genetic mutation,
natural selection, and all of that, I think is the best scientific explanation
we have of these origins that I spoke of.
Well, I clearly agree with that.
This is also the current position of mainstream secular science.
Denial of evolution is unique to the United States.
Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science, in all of biology.
It explains so much of the world around us.
If you try to ignore that, your world view just becomes crazy, just untenable,
self-inconsistent.
And I say to the grown-ups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world
that's completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe,
that's fine.
But don't make your kids do it, because we need them.
And in the UK, Nicky Morgan, who became the Secretary of State for Education in
July 2014, has, according to the London Guardian newspaper, allowed local
authorities to cut off funding to nurseries promoting extremist views.
Which is teaching a child creationism.
So teaching a child that God created the earth in 6 days and the rest of the 7th is
extremism?
Let us carefully assess Social Darwinism.
Darwin's book has never properly been scrutinised by mainstream secular
scientists.
But let us quote Darwin's contradictory, speculative and self-condemning theory.
He says, it seems to me almost certain that an ordinary quadruped might be
converted into a giraffe.
Well, there is no evidence in the fossil record a giraffe has always been a
giraffe.
And all quadrupeds that are four-legged animals are, according to Genesis 1,
verses 24 and 25, created independently.
And there is no evolving into one species into another.
He continues to speculate.
Although no graduated links of structure fitted for gliding through the air now
connect the Galiopithecus with the other insectivore, yet there is no difficulty
that such links formerly existed.
It has been asked by the opponents of such views as I hold, how, for instance,
could a land carnivorous animal have been converted into one with aquatic habits?
Innumerable transitional forms must have existed.
Why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the
earth?
He repeats his astonishment for the lack of evidence in the fossil record to verify
his theory.
Why do we not find closely linking intermediate varieties?
He repeats a third time that there is no evidence.
Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such
intermediate links?
Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain.
And this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged
against the theory.
Even though films come out to revere Charles Darwin and his theory,
he of his own self says there is nothing in the fossil record to verify what he
said at all.
So if there is no tangible physical evidence in the fossil record,
then what on earth are scientists teaching people?
Many will argue that was over 150 years ago and we cannot judge a man on the scant
evidence of his day.
But has any evidence been discovered since then?
If I'm not human, what am I?
The next step in human evolution.
In the London Economist in 2005, an interesting article is written on
Darwinism and the social sciences and it says, exactly how humanity became human is
still a matter of debate.
Well, they will be debating for a very long time.
In a scientific magazine called Discover Presents, he says, the origins and nature
of our most distant ancestors, the first primates, remain largely
unknown.
Exactly how and when the groups diverged is still a mystery.
In the 23rd of June 2003 edition of Time magazine, it reads that new fossils prove
that the first homo sapiens looked like us, walked like us and in some ways acted
like us as well.
The scientific evidence is not supporting Darwinism.
In the London Independent newspaper dated to Friday April 9th 2010, it reads that
the paucity or lack of evidence in the fossil record for this critical period in
human history has cast doubt on exactly how the ape to human transition occurred.
Wow, no evidence.
Interesting.
I filmed this chimp in Whipsnade Zoo.
We can't ignore the similarities between primates and humans, but they are two
separate distinct species and the evidence by secular scientists refutes once again
Darwinism.
The London Independent dated Tuesday the 14th of April 2009 proves over again that
chimps and man are two separate species.
It reads, humanity's immediate predecessors may have had trouble climbing
trees, research suggests, so they may not have been as ape-like as many experts
believe.
It has been widely assumed that the earliest humans were ape-like,
but the research contradicts this idea, showing that unlike modern chimps,
ancient humans were not designed to climb trees.
Wow, they just realised.
But this has not stopped the papacy from embracing the unscientific views of
Darwinism, where scientists still fail to tell the public on the origins of life,
on how it happened, when it happened, and what species turned into what.
Those seem to me to be scientific questions, or potentially scientific
questions.
If there are some questions of that sort that science can never answer,
then we should at least keep trying to answer them.
And if science can't answer them, religion having a crack at answering them,
if there's no reason to think that religion has any basis for an answer,
then why would religion have a crack?
Why would you bother to listen to religion having a crack at answering them?
I mean, one thing I would say is there may be questions that science can't answer,
like the origin of everything, but if science can't answer them,
then religion certainly can't, and nothing else can either.
But one Jesuit scientist has a far more vast influence on modern science than
people can imagine.
And one of the most respected astrophysicists in North America,
Neil deGrasse Tyson, informs us where he gets his inspiration from.
You learn, oh, the molecules and the atoms of those molecules in my body are
traceable to stars across the galaxy that have lived their lives, manufactured these
elements, exploded them into the universe, from which new generations of star systems
were formed.
So I look up at the night sky, I don't feel small, I feel large.
I feel connected to the universe.
It's not just we here on Earth, that's there.
We are one.
And that link, for me, is one of the most profound discoveries of modern
astrophysics.
Trying to understand this deep connection that people have to the forest.
She talks about a network of energy that flows through all living things.
She says, all energy is only borrowed, and one day you have to give it back.
We know why we got, we had a big bang.
Big bang put everything into motion.
I'm good with that.
We're good.
The person who did that was a Belgian priest, Georges Lemaitre.
He's a priest, physicist, physicist priest.
What a cool thing to have on your business card.
You got people coming and going with that.
But he calculated what the implications of Einstein's general relativity,
which was the new theory of gravity, would be with Hubble's expanding universe.
And he says, the whole universe may have begun in a singular point in the past.
And thus, big bang as a phrase was used pejoratively of this idea, but it stuck.
So, there's no sign that everything will ever be fully known, because this moving
frontier continues to bring us more questions.
According to the Catholic press, the big bang theory was first described,
but not so named, by the French Jesuit Georges Lemaitre in the late 1920s.
Georges Lemaitre is a Jesuit whose theory he first proposed in 1931 that was
actually called, at the time, the primeval atom hypothesis.
And it is amazing that a Roman Catholic Jesuit priest can make many all over the
world believe that an explosion just appeared from nowhere and formed the
universe and the planet we now inhabit, and steer the direction of the
astrophysicists in the scientific community.
The Vatican still works with the most prestigious and highly decorated
scientists of our day, but their ultimate aim will not be to give God the glory,
but to give man the glory, as George Coyne confirmed.
And we shall continue how she will finally accomplish this in the New World Disorder
part 2.
If there's one thing I've enjoyed about doing this study of the two kingdoms,
is the feedback from people.
People are actually researching for themselves, analyzing for themselves.
It shows that they will not be deceived.
You know, people are very easily led by an individual, and I'm glad that you actually
take an instruction that I'm giving, that you are actually observing everything
which is being presented.
In the next study, we're going to be looking at one of the most controversial
geopolitical conflicts in the world.
It is in a region called Palestine.
I just want to warn you that there's a lot of information on there, and the last half
an hour is a very solid Bible study.
In the meantime, thank you for the support, and please continue to watch the
series of The Two Kingdoms.