The Authorised King James Bible?

[Bulletproof Monk]

For those of you with an interest in the Bible, here's one for you to consider...

Sir Francis Bacon, widely accepted as being William Shakespeare, oversaw the re-writing of the "Authorised" King James Bible.

Now, Bacon, being one of the initiates, and founder of many a secret society decided to encode this particular version with his own "Cipher"...the 111 or Bacon Cipher.

He was 46 when he created it, and to codify his secret identity as Shakespeare he changed the following passage from PSALM 46. You can easily verify this for yourself.

If you count 46 words from the beginning, you come to the word "Shake", previously "Quake", then if you count 46 words back from the end you of course come to the word "Spear", previously "shield".

In between these two words are exactly 111 words, the name of his cipher.

Now, it doesn't stop there..

Shakespeare's first folio 1623, of which I have a facsimile copy of the original (needed to decode the letterforms in their original handwriting) contains, so they say, the true history of our world including Jesus and his travels as a mortal man...basically the beginning of the Da Vinci code story.

You'll also need Manly P. Hall's "Secret teachings of all ages" which provides the decoder for the 3 stage cipher, and allows you to find the true meaning behind his works.

This is the reason that Shakespeare sounds so strange when spoken, and words are sometimes back to front, it's important for the code to work.

Now there's an interesting bible study...

BULLETPROOF

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by Bulletproof Monk

For those of you with an interest in the Bible, here's one for you to consider...

Sir Francis Bacon, widely accepted as being William Shakespeare, oversaw the re-writing of the "Authorised" King James Bible.

Not an auspicious beginning. First, no genuine expert on Shakespeare takes seriously the "Bacon claim". Francis Bacon's career and writings - mostly involving law - are well documented, do not resemble Shakespeare's style, and are themselves bulky enough to suggest that Bacon didn't have enough time left over to write the Shakespearean plays and sonnets.

Moreover, at the time the KJV was being worked up, Bacon was the Solicitor General of England, later Lord Chancellor. He is not known for any Biblical expertise, nor is there any evidence -- apart from Bulletproof's wishful thinking -- that he played a part in working up the KJV. The KJV translators are known and listed, most of them have documented biographies, and they all were clergy of either Anglican or Puritan sympathies. Bacon's name is not on the lists of translators, nor does his surviving papers refer to them nor theirs to him.

Shakespeare's first folio 1623, of which I have a facsimile copy of the original (needed to decode the letterforms in their original handwriting) contains, so they say, the true history of our world including Jesus and his travels as a mortal man...basically the beginning of the Da Vinci code story.

The First Folio, published 7 years after Shakespeare's death, and when Bacon was in his 60s only two years before his death - it being doubtful that he had either the desire or energy to conceal the history of the world or any other hidden messages of substantial length at that stage of his life, is a monument to difficult typesetting and proofreading, which has since created careers for hundreds of editors and commentators. Oddly enough, the First Folio lacks a couple of plays that are now identified as Shakespeare's and all of the poetry.

Two OSS cryptographers worked up a book, The Shakespeare Ciphers Re-examined, circa 1954, which exploded the notion of a Bacon cipher and several similar theories and makes very entertaining reading.

[2tim215]

Who were the King James Version Translators?

INCLUDING EXCERPTS FROM, The Translators Revived

by Alexander McClure, 1858

Preface.
We do not know much about the men who translated the King James Bible--the word of God for the English-speaking people. Perhaps this is fitting lest too much honor should be bestowed upon man. However, given the current controversy over our beloved Authorized Version I believe it good and profitable to learn more about these men of God. Some defender of modern Bible perversions will immaturely accuse us of "worshipping the translators". But what saith the scriptures?

Romans 13:7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
It is good and profitable to remember our fathers in the faith and the contributions they made for our good. Let's turn off the hell-i-vision and get some knowledge. It is good to look into the "olde things".

Jeremiah 6:16 Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.
Will you ask for the old paths? When you find profitable things there, will you take heed to them? Unlike folks of today, the men of King James' time were true divines and scholars. I perceive that those who held bachelor's degrees could out-think most of the doctors of today. We'd think their doctor's were geniuses. The King James Bible translators were men who regularly debated in Latin and Greek, one had read the entire Bible in Hebrew by the time he was six, and on and on. But even more importantly, they were godly men devoted to spiritual pursuits. They believed that they were translating the very words of God--and they took their sacred duties seriously. As it states in the Translators to the Reader--

Again, they came or were thought to come to the work, not exercendi causa (as one saith) but exercitati, that is, learned, not to learn:
Nowadays you've got "I-barely-know-Greek translators" who have their feet in everything from hell-i-vision to sodomy.

The King James Version translators took the baton passed on to them by devout men and martyrs who translated before them. Men like John Wiclif, aka "The Morning Star of the Reformation" who was the first to translate the entire Bible into English. Although he only had the Latin Vulgate to work with, you can see his influence on Tyndale's translation and ultimately our Authorized Version. Like Martin Luther, Dr. Wiclif was a member of the Romish religion when he was awakened to the truth through the reading of the scriptures. He spoke out vehemently against the Romish rites and practices which at that time had a stranglehold on the land. His followers were called Lollards and they went out like circuit preachers spreading the doctrine of Christ. Dr. Wiclif wrote tracts and spoke out against error. He was severely persecuted by the Romish religion while alive and was banished from Oxford and his professorship by order of the king. Nevertheless, the Lord delivered him out of Romish hands many times and allowed him to continue his translation work. In 1428, about 44 years after his death, Pope Martin V commanded Dr. Wiclif's bones to be dug up and burned as an arch heretick.

William Tyndale who translated from the Textus Receptus line, was strangled and burned at the stake by the Catholic religion because of translating the Bible. Time fails me here to speak of John Rogers, Myles Coverdale and others who labored AND DIED that we might have the word of God in our hands. The Authorized Version is a Book forged in blood, sweat and tears. Treasure it. The King James translators said this of the cumulative nature of their work--

"Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one...but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one..."
Please do not be deceived into thinking that the King James Bible is only an amalgamation of previous translations. These scholars consulted the original languages and related languages.

"Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch; neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see."
Should the Lord will, I would like to publish information on the faithful saints who were persecuted, imprisioned, tortured, and killed by the Romish religion that we might have the word of God in our own tongue. They did not accept deliverance that they might obtain a better resurrection.

The following accounts of the King James translators are taken from, The Translators Revived by Alexander McClure published in 1858. I do not agree with all of Mr. McClure's historical commentary. In fact, I strongly disagree with his assessment of His Majestie King James VI & I whom Mr. McClure makes out to be worse than a heathen. One way this bias manifests itself is in Mr. McClure's narrative about Dr. Richard Bancroft, one of the translators close to the King:

"...considering the control exercised by this towering prelate, and the fact that the great majority of the Translators were of his way of thinking, it is quite surprising that the work is not deeply tinged with their sentiments. On the whole, it is certainly very far from being a sectarian version, like nearly all which have since been attemped in English. It is said that Bancroft altered fourteen places, so as to make them speak in phrase to suit him...Two of those alleged alterations are quite preposterous. To have the glorious word "bishopric" occur at least once in the volume, the office is conferred, in the first chapter of Acts, on Judas Iscariot! 'His bishopric let another take.'"

Here Mr. McClure shows his ignorance of earlier Bible versions, which I just happen to have a copy of in the English Hexapla. The scripture in question is Acts 1:20 where the King James translators selected the word, "bishopricke". This translation was not unique to the King James Bible. In fact the word "bishopricke" was used in Wiclif's translation which was produced over 200 years before the King James Bible was ever thought about! Remember that the King James Bible came out in 1611. Look at the readings in these earlier translations (see next page)--

2tim215
2 Tim 2:15(KJV) Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

[2tim215]

Translation Year Reading
(Wiclif 1380) and it is writun in the book of salmes, the abitacioun of hem be made desert: and be there noon that dwelle in it, and another take his bischopriche,
(Tyndale 1534) It is written in the boke of Psalmes: His habitacion be voyde, and no man be dwellinge therin: and his bisshoprychke let another take.
(Cranmer 1539) For it is wrytten in the boke of Psalmes: hys habitacyon be voyde, and no man be dwellinge therin: and his Bisshoprycke let another take.
(King James 1611) For it is written in the booke of Psalmes, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: And his Bishopricke let another take.
(Geneva 1557) For it is written in the boke of Psalmes, Let his habitation be voyde, and no man dwel therin: And let another take his charge.

The only dissenting Bible in this group is the Geneva, a Puritan Bible. It was wrong for Mr. McClure to intimate that Dr. Bancroft arbitrarily added the word "bishoprick" for sectarian reasons. People have written this webmaster saying that the King James translators mis-translated certain items to placate the King. As we see in the above example, this simply is not true. Perhaps Mr. McClure's Puritanical bias has clouded his sense of objectivity (upon reading Translators Revived this Puritanical bias is easily seen). The Puritans and King James were not the closest of friends. In fact, Puritan Oliver Cromwell took over England after the regicide (means, killing of a king) of King James' son King Charles I.
All of this said, I believe Mr. McClure's narrative on the qualifications of the translators offers us some insight on these little known men. There are so few sources available on the King James Bible translators that I find myself at the mercy of Mr. McClure for this season. It is commonly reported that there were 54 translators selected to the translation but only 47 actually participated in the work. Mr. McClure's book chronicles 51 translators. As you read the translator's rules, you will see that other principal, learned men of the kingdom were also invited to make their comments on the work at hand. The King James Bible translators were a collection of some of the world's best scholars. They approached this translation with the mindset that they were translating the very word of God, not just some book. The King James Bible has been called "the monument of English prose" as well as "the only great work of art ever created by a committee".

INTRODUCTION TO THE TRANSLATION</B>

(a little background information)

• The Hampton Court Conference
• Introduction to the Translators
• The Rules for Translating
• Translators to the Reader (this is not part of Translators Revived)
• Epistle Dedicatory (this is not part of Translators Revived)
• BIOGRAPHIES OF THE

KING JAMES VERSION TRANSLATORS




I. The First Westminister Company--translated the historical books, beginning with Genesis and ending with the Second Book of Kings.

• Dr. Lancelot Andrews
• Dr. John Overall
• Dr. Hadrian Saravia
• Dr. Richard Clarke, Dr. John Laifield, Dr. Robert Tighe, Francis Burleigh, Geoffry King, Richard Thompson
• Dr. William Bedwell

II. The Cambridge Company--translated Chronicles to the end of the Song of Songs.

• Edward Lively, Dr. John Richardson, Dr. Lawrence Chaderton
• Francis Dillingham, Dr. Roger Andrews, Thomas Harrison, Dr. Robert Spaulding, Dr. Andrew Bing

III. The Oxford Company--translated beginning of Isaiah to the end of the Old Testament.

• Dr. John Harding, Dr. John Reynolds
• Dr. Thomas Holland, Dr. Richard Kilby
• Dr. Miles Smith, Dr. Richard Brett, Daniel Fairclough

IV. The Second Oxford Company--translated the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Revelation of St. John the Divine.

• Dr. Thomas Ravis, Dr. George Abbot
• Dr. Richard Eedes, Dr. Giles Tomson, Sir Henry Savile
• Dr. John Peryn, Dr. Ralph Ravens, Dr. John Harmar

V. The Fifth Company of Translators at Westminster--translated all of the Epistles of the New Testament

• Dr. William Barlow, Dr. John Spencer, Dr. Roger Fenton, Dr. Ralph Hutchinson, William Dakins, Michael Rabbet, [Thomas(?)] Sanderson

VI. The Sixth Company of Translators at Cambridge translated the apocryphal books.

• Dr. John Duport, Dr. William Brainthwaite, Dr. Jeremiah Radcliffe
• Dr. Samuel Ward
• Dr. Andrew Downes, John Bois
• Dr. John Ward, Dr. John Aglionby, Dr. Leonard Hutten
  Dr. Thomas Bilson, Dr. Richard Bancroft

link: http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/transtoc.htm

2tim215
2 Tim 2:15(KJV) Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

[Bulletproof Monk]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Not an auspicious beginning. First, no genuine expert on Shakespeare takes seriously the "Bacon claim".

How do you explain the Psalm 46 mystery then?

The Van Somer portrait of Sir Francis Bacon in the 1640 edition of "The Advancement of Learning", when superimposed upon that of William Shakespear in the first four folios of the Shakespearean plays establishes beyond all doubt the identity of the two faces. In fact it's a perfect match.

The Key to the Biliteral cipher, as shown in Bacon's "De Augmentis Scientiarum", explains: "After the document to be deciphered has been reduced to it's "A" and "B" equivalents, it is then broken up into five-letter groups and the message read with the aid of the above table (not fully shown here)

Basically:
A = Aaaaa
B = aaaab
C = aaaba
D = aaabb
E = aabaa

and so on..

This is only one part of a three stage cipher that Bacon developed for his writings. Bacon was a Rosecrucian, and high initiate of the Rosecrucian order and posessed the knowledge and skills, as well as the language to write such works.

King James turned over to him the translators manuscripts of what is now known as the King James version, presumably for the purpose of checking, editing and revising them. The documents remained in his hands for nearly a year, with no record of what happenned during that time.

The first edition of the King James bible contained a cryptic Baconian headpiece. The same cryptic headpiece, which often involves the use of two letter "A"s, side by side, one light, one in shadow, can been seen only in a certain rare number of volumes:

1. Shakespeare's First Folio 1623
2. Bacon's Novum Organum
3. The St. James Bible
4. Spenser's Faerie Queene
5. Sir Walter Raleigh's History of the World
6. First edition of the King James Bible

In Bacon's "Interpretation of Nature" he writes:

"If a sow with her snout were to imprint the letter "A" upon the ground, wouldst thou therefore imagine that she could write out a whole tragedy as one letter?"

The light and dark letter "A"s appear as an ornamental headpiece in several volumes published by emisarries of the Rosecrucians, and also appear in Shakespeare's King Richard the second Quarto of 1597.

Did I forget to mention that the symbol of the Rosecrucians, and goddess worshipped by the Illuminati is Queen Semiramis, the "Spear-Shaker" (shakes spear), strangely enough on ancient coins she looks exactly like the Statue of Liberty, (with the same spiky headpiece), which was given to the U.S by the French Masons/Rosecrucuians...

There's a million other pieces of evidence out there too, but this is just to let you see that all is not what we have been indoctrinated to believe...in fact it's nothing like we think it is.

BULLETPROOF

[Bulletproof Monk]

Lancelot Andrews: "As a preacher, Bishop Andrews was right famous in his day. He was called the 'star of preachers…Dr Andrews was also known as a great man of prayer…But we are chiefly concerned to know what were his qualifications as a translator of the Bible. He ever bore the character of a 'right godly man,' and a 'prodigious student.' One competent judge speaks of him as 'that great gulf of learning'! It was also said, that 'the world wanted learning to know how learned this man was.' A brave, old chronicler remarks, that such was his skill in all languages, especially the Oriental, that had he been present at the confusion of tongues at Babel, he might have served as the Interpreter-General! In his funeral sermon by Dr. Buckridge, Bishop of Rochester, it is said that Dr. Andrews was conversant with fifteen languages." (page 186)
John Overall : He was chosen for his expertise in the writings of the early church fathers. " Dr. Overall was vital to the translation because of his knowledge of quotations of the early church fathers." (page 186-187)
Robert Tighe: " an excellent textuary and profound linguist." (page 189)
William Bedwell : " an eminent Oriental scholar. His epitaph mentions that he was 'for the Eastern tongues, as learned a man as most lived in these modern times.'" (page 189)
Edward Lively: " One of the best linguists in the world…Much dependence was placed on his surpassing skill in Oriental languages." (page 190)
Lawrence Chaderton: " He made himself familiar with the Latin, Greek and Hebrew tongues and was thoroughly skilled in them…Dr Chaderton was a powerful preacher who lived to the age of one hundred and three. A preaching engagement in his later years was described as follows: 'Having addressed his audience for full two hours by the glass, he paused and said, 'I will no longer trespass on your patience.' And now comes the marvel; for the whole congregation cried out with one consent 'For God's sake, go on!' " (page 191)
Francis Dillingham : "was so studied in the original languages that he participated in public debates in Greek." (page 191)
Thomas Harrison : Vice-Master of Trinity College in Cambridge. "On account of his exquisite skill in the Hebrew and Greek idioms, he was one of the chief examiners in the University of those who sought to be professors of these languages." (page 192)
John Harding : "At the time of his appointment to aid in the translation of the Bible, he had been Royal Professor of Hebrew in the University for thirteen years." (page 192)
John Reynolds : "Determined to explore the whole field and make himself master of the subject, he devoted himself to the study of the Scriptures in the original languages, and read all the Greek and Latin fathers, and all the ancient records of the Church." (page 193)
Dr. Henry Saville : "was known for his Greek and mathematical learning. He was so well known for his education, skilled in languages and knowledge of the Word, that he became Greek and mathematical tutor to Queen Elizabeth during the reign of her father, Henry VIII." (page 195)
Dr. Miles Smith : "the man responsible for the preface of the King James Bible. The preface is no longer printed in present copies of the Book. He had a knowledge of Greek and Latin fathers, as well as being an expert in Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic. 'Hebrew he had at his finger's end.' And so was the Ethiopic tongue." (page 195)

http://www.angelfire.com/la/prophet1/kjvt1.html

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by Bulletproof Monk

How do you explain the Psalm 46 mystery then?

Same peculiarity occurs in Psalm 46 in the Bishop's Bible several years before the KJV.

The Van Somer portrait of Sir Francis Bacon in the 1640 edition of "The Advancement of Learning", when superimposed upon that of William Shakespear in the first four folios of the Shakespearean plays establishes beyond all doubt the identity of the two faces.

This is building on only one portrait of Bacon against only one portrait of Shakespeare, both portraits drawn years after their subjects were dead. There are, of course, several other portraits of both Shake and Bake, and the resemblances are less impressive. About 50 years ago a similar theory connecting Christopher Marlowe to Shakespeare also used a similarity of portraits.

King James turned over to him [=Francis Bacon] the translators manuscripts of what is now known as the King James version, presumably for the purpose of checking, editing and revising them. The documents remained in his hands for nearly a year, with no record of what happened during that time.

Absolutely no evidence for this, nor even for suggesting that the King ever handled the manuscripts of the KJV translators.

... the use of two letter "A"s, side by side, one light, one in shadow, can been seen only in a certain rare number of volumes:

1. Shakespeare's First Folio 1623
2. Bacon's Novum Organum
3. The St. James Bible
4. Spenser's Faerie Queene
5. Sir Walter Raleigh's History of the World
6. First edition of the King James Bible

Only those six books? Are you sure. Catalogues of 17th century publications show thousands of books published in England during that 33 year period (The Faerie Queen published in 1590, the First Folio in 1623).

I am not unfamiliar with your No.3 book. And you don't identify the editions of most of the others.

Did I forget to mention that the symbol of the Rosecrucians, and goddess worshipped by the Illuminati is Queen Semiramis...

The symbol of the Rosecrucians is - surprise! - the Rosy Cross. No evidence that the Illuminati (or anyone else) worshipped Semiramis. An additional little problem is that you're trying to date the Rosicrucians impossibly early, before Christian Rozenkruez published his books in 1614.

[David Merrill]

From the Rosicrucian Manual c. 1917:

[Bulletproof Monk]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

From the Rosicrucian Manual c. 1917:

Nice one David!

BPM

[2tim215]

1 of 2

Shoonra was right.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Same peculiarity occurs in Psalm 46 in the Bishop's Bible several years before the KJV.

According to Wikpedia, Bacon was born in 1561 and William Shakespeare in 1564. There are actually 3 different Bible translations which were completed before the King James which was prior to 1611. They are the Bishops, Cloverdale and the Geneva Bibles. I‘ve listed the verses in question below including the King James rendition. They all include the same two words (highlighted in bold) which are in question.

Psalms 46:3 (KJV - 1611) 3 Though the waters thereof roar and be troubled, though the mountains shake with the swelling thereof. Selah
Strong’s Hebrew definition for shake - H7493 רָעַשׁ râ‛ash raw-ash
A primitive root; to undulate (as the earth, the sky, etc.; also a field of grain), particularly through fear; specifically to spring (as a locust):—make afraid, (re-) move, quake, (make to) shake, (make to) tremble.
Bishops (1568) 46:3 - Though the waters thereof rage and swell: and though the mountaynes shake at the surges of the same. Selah.
Cloverdale (1535) 46:3 - Though the waters of the see raged & were neuer so troublous, & though the mountaynes shoke at the tepest of the same.
Geneva (1587) 46:3 - Though the waters thereof rage and be troubled, and the mountaines shake at the surges of the same. Selah,

Psalms 46:9 (KJV - 1611) 9 He maketh wars to cease unto the end of the earth; he breaketh the bow, and cutteth the spear in sunder; he burneth the chariot in the fire.
Strong’s Hebrew definition for spear - H2595 חֲנִית chănı̂yth khan-eeth'
From H2583; a lance (for thrusting, like pitching a tent):—javelin, spear.
Bishops (1568) 46:9 - He maketh warres to ceasse in all the worlde: he breaketh the bowe, & knappeth the speare in sunder, and burneth the charettes in the fire.
Cloverdale (1535) 46:9 - He hath made warres to ceasse in all the worlde: he hath broken the bowe, he hath knapped the speare in sonder, & bret the charettes in the fyre.
[b]Geneva (1587) 46:9 - He maketh warres to cease vnto the endes of the world: he breaketh the bowe and cutteth the speare, and burneth the chariots with fire
http://www.studylight.org/desk/?l=en...str &oq=&sr=1

Notice that all three of these earlier Bibles include the word “speare” in verse 9 and two out of the three versions include the word “shake” (which is the same in King James) and the one which doesn’t (the Cloverdale which is the oldest) employs the word “shoke” instead (due to a more antiquated English at the time) which clearly indicates that the translators in each case believed the interpretation to be the same. In addition, I have included for you the Strong’s definition of the Hebrew which provides some additional confirmation.

Therefore based on the historical dates of the birth of Sir Francis Bacon as well as that of William Shakespeare, which are given to be 1561 and 1564 respectively (source = Wikpedia) the Cloverdale Bible would have been completed before the birth of either Shakespeare or Bacon by at least 16 years, the Bishop when Bacon was 8 and the Geneva when Bacon was approximately 27 in which he is very unlikely to have had the influence he would later have with King James and certainly wouldn’t have had any in the creation of those other Bibles as would have to be supposed.

Furthermore, in order for this “theory” to work, in terms of the so-called “cipher” there are two other things which should be considered: 1) in order for the counts to be as is suggested, the word “selah” (which is part of the original) cannot be counted as it would throw your count off. 2) Another interesting point is that in the King James if someone were planting a “code” of some sort, why would “shakespeare” be misspelled as “shakespear” where the “e” is left off? This might not be as significant I suppose if it weren’t for the spelling in the other three Bibles where it is in fact spelled “speare”. If they spelled it this way and the original intent was to make it name Shakespeare with this presumed code, why wouldn’t Bacon (or whoever it was) have spelled it with the “e”? In addition, we know that the King James translators used these older versions in creating the King James as we saw it stated in an actual quote from the translators themselves (in an article which was posted earlier in this thread) indicating that they did value the contributions of the earlier translators (which were their predecessors) and consulted these older versions while they were composing the King James (see quote below):

"Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one...but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one..." (continued)

2tim215
2 Tim 2:15(KJV) Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.