[ Up ] [ Bible101 ] [ Sananda ] [ Piso ]

BIBLE 101: NOT ALL IT'S CRACKED UP TO BE
http://www.davidicke.net/religiousfrauds/christianity/bible101.html 

GLOBAL NEWS NET Newsbreaks.Analysis.Commentary. "Awareness Leading to Solutions"

Global News Net is a forum whose mission is to present diverse information, commentary and analysis for the purpose of promoting solution-oriented awareness and introspection leading to informed choices.

August 8, 2002

BIBLE 101: NOT ALL IT'S CRACKED UP TO BE (Printed on Friday, August 02, 2002 in YellowTimes.org) )

By John Brand, D.Min., J.D.

A gentleman who has read some of my articles is very much concerned about the state of my soul as well as the soul of YellowTimes.org publisher Erich Marquardt. He suggests that if we do not believe in the errant word of God, we will certainly wind up in hell. I have always replied rather politely to his e-mails. Yet, my first impulse was to quote the Bible back to him: "Do not judge, so that you may not be judged." (Matthew 7:1) That is just one passage of many in which folks are warned not to judge others.

My second impulse is to point out to him that we are in deep trouble if the entire Bible is the inerrant word of God. Some of the most lurid stuff is found in the pages of the "Good Book." If the bare metal breast of a lifeless statue offends the Attorney General, he would probably have a serious fit if he ever were to read the 23rd Chapter of Ezekiel. The prophet recounts the fact that the tribes of Israel and Judah had not been faithful to God. The following are the supposed inerrant words of God reported in verses 18 - 21.

"When she (Judah) carried on the nakedness, I turned in disgust from her, as I had turned from her sister (Israel). Yet she increased her whorings, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the whore in the land of Egypt and lusted after her paramours there, whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose emission was like that of stallions. Thus you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when the Egyptians fondled your bosom and caressed your young breasts."

Boy, this God is really expressive. In view of the fact that the popular image we have of God is one of decency and decorum, propriety and purity, I have a hard time accepting that kind of language as the inerrant word of God. It would make the ladies in most Sunday School classes blush to high heavens. And yet, fundamentalists insist this indeed is the true, eternal, and righteous word of God.

And then there is this story in Judges, chapters 19 - 21.

Let me very briefly restate it. I am not taking literary license with a single word. A Levite, name not given, from the hill country of Ephraim, had a concubine whose home was in Bethlehem in Judea. (Whoa, well a little editorializing is all right. Does that mean that the inerrant word of God allows me to have a concubine? My wife can't complain about my request. After all, concubinage is ordained in the inerrant word.) One day the aforementioned lady got her nose out of joint and went back home to her Dad. Hubby followed her intending to sweet-talk her and bring her back.

He arrived at his father-in-law's house (the woman in question in a later verse is called the Levite's wife, so I guess we can call her Dad the man's father-in-law) and the two men ate and drank. They ate and drank for several days! (So, the inerrant word suggests that partying is o.k. I like that. The Biblical God takes on a bit of Bacchus's character here. I wonder if the Puritans knew that?) Anyway, time for partying was over.

The Levite and his concubine/wife left for the hill country. At night they stopped in the village of Gibeah, home to some members of the tribe of Benjamin.

The Levite and his concubine/wife were seated in the town square when an old man invited them to spend the night. The offer of hospitality was accepted. Again we are told that host and guest drank and ate. While they were having a good time, a perverse group of citizens banged on the door demanding that the host turn the guest over to them "so that we may have intercourse with him." (Judges 19:22) The old man refused because as polite and decent host he simply could not honor their request. He continued in v. 24, "Here are my virgin daughters and his concubine; let me bring them out now. Ravish them and do whatever you want to them."

Now this must really be exemplary moral behavior. The father protects his guest but is quite willing to have his daughters and his guest's concubine raped. There is not a word of God expressing his disapproval of the old man's offer. This, according to the reader who wants to save my soul, is the inerrant word of God. It is also the inerrant word to Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and who knows how many other millions of Americans who have bought into the fairy tale of the infallibility of the Bible without ever having read the book. But wait, it gets worse.

The Levite pushes his concubine out the door and she was raped and abused all night long. (v. 25) In the morning her master/husband (what do you call the man who has a concubine? I really don't know) saw her lying at the door. He said, "Get up, we are going." When she did not respond, he put her on a donkey and proceeded to go home.

Sometime later it dawned on him that the lady was dead.

So after he got home, he cut her body into twelve pieces, limb by limb, and sent his servants to each of the twelve tribes of Israel with the message that the vile acts of the Benjaminites cried out for justice. Of course, not a word was said that he pushed her out the door knowing full well that the men who demanded to have sexual fun with him would not have a prayer meeting with the young lady.

Well, the furor of this affair caused a terrible war that caused the death of thousands upon thousands. And then in the end, in God's name, the city of Gibeah was burned. On God's orders all the men, women, and children, as well as all animals were killed.

To completely avenge the death of the concubine, some of the other towns of the tribe of Benjamin were also torched.

Now here is a sleeper. Six hundred Benjaminites escaped. After a few months, everybody's blood had cooled down.

It was discovered that these men did not have any prospects of getting married because all the women of their tribe had been killed. So the elders of the tribe of Israel, with God's approval one must assume, authorized the surviving Gibeonites to kidnap some women from Shiloh to take as their wives. Everybody lived happily ever after.

This is supposed to be the inerrant word of God? Come on, I have higher morals than that.

Chapter 15 of I Samuel presents a rather weird picture of the deity.

The prophet Samuel claims that God ordered him to anoint Saul as King over Israel. In the same breath, he orders Saul, in God's name, to attack the Amalekites "and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." Talk about a bloodbath!

Well, Saul fought a victorious campaign and started to implement God's commandment to slaughter one and all.

But Saul was no dummy. He saved the best of the sheep and the cattle, the fatlings, the lambs and all that was valuable. Knowing something about international politics, Saul was also clever enough not to kill Agag, the king of the Amalekites. One never knows when a former enemy might prove to be an asset. After all, both Germany and Japan, our archenemies about sixty years ago, are now our buddies. Saul just anticipated international diplomacy by about 3,000 years.

Well, Samuel, even without modern hearing aids, heard the bleating of sheep and the lowing of cattle. He got pretty mad and started to berate Saul. "Damned," (this is my rendition of what he said to the king) "the Lord told you to kill everybody and everything. And what in the hell did you do, you ingrate? You take it upon yourself to defy God's word." Well, Saul could not stand the prophet's disapproval and confessed that he was a sinner by not chopping off all heads.

Saul was particularly contrite because Samuel threatened to dispose the King and anoint someone else in Saul's place. That really put Saul into a repentant mood. One assumes that to glorify God, Saul did go ahead and kill all the animals. It does not say that in the Bible but I assume that is what happened, particularly in view of what happens next.

Samuel demanded that King Agag be brought before him. Samuel said to the King: "As your sword has made women childless, so your mother shall be childless among women. And Samuel hewed Agag to pieces before the Lord in Gilgal." (v. 33) Can't you just hear all the angels in heaven breaking out in the Hallelujah Chorus? How happy one and all must have been to see the blood spurting from Agog's severed head.

Now if that is the 24-karat image of God, the genuine sterling silver image, recorded in an inerrant book, I claim that I would make a better God than that caricature. That brutality does not reflect an eternal essence. It does reflect tribal ethos of about 3,000 years ago. I might add, the tribal ethos that hasn't changed all that much. By God, we want bin Laden!

We'll hack the S.O.B. to pieces in the name of all that is holy and honorable.

The New Testament presents its own particular problems calling into question whether the Bible can really be said to be the inerrant word of God. Colossians 4:1 states my concerns most clearly, "Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly." Not a word is said against the practice of slavery. To be sure, passages in the New Testament enjoin believers to treat their slaves in a humane manner but there is no word against the institution of slavery. Col 3:11 states that in the "renewal" there is no difference among classes of people such as Greeks, Jews, barbarians, Scythians, slave and free. But nothing is said about the practice of slavery itself. I Corinthians 12:13 repeats the same thought.

There is to be no difference among believers but again we find no injunction against slavery. It is somewhat difficult for me to consider a book to be the inerrant word of God that does not raise its voice against slavery but by implication condones the practice.

Another serious problem is posed in some passages of the New Testament that totally and unconditionally erase any trace of personal freedom in one's quest for a deeper meaning of life. Romans 8:29-30 states, "For those whom he (God) foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn within a large family. And those whom he predestined he also called. And those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified."

This express suppression of human will is further underlined in 9:16 of the same book: "So it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who shows mercy."

This last statement is particularly meaningless. If human will is excluded from the ultimate and final decision regarding one's fate and destiny, why would God have to show mercy? He already, according to Paul's writings, has decided whose dice will roll a seven or an eleven and whose will come up snake eyes or double sixes. So what is the place of mercy in a predetermined game? Mercy is needed if snake eyes are rolled and God says, "Oh, what the heck, give the poor sucker a chance" and he changes the roll into a seven. But there is no leeway here. God determined a long time ago who is going the win the pot and who will be left destitute. Such nonsense does not reflect inerrancy. Come on, now. I said "win the pot" not smoke it.

One final passage calling into question that God is the authentic author of these 66 books written over about 1,000 years. We have heard a lot from religious fundamentalists about wanting The Ten Commandments plastered all over this country. For openers, if they really believe that these injunctions came from God himself then all these Bible thumping folks will have to come out strongly against the death penalty. Exodus 20:13, "You shall not murder."

No place does it say that State sanctioned murder is not murder. Now the Bible, as we have seen with Samuel and Agog, is full of killing and murder and mayhem done in God's name. But the Commandment says, "Don't." Our President said that Jesus is his philosopher. Yet, he loves the death penalty. Doesn't make sense, does it?

But the Sixth Commandment is not my main point. What for heaven's sake kind of a deity is it that would say something like this: "For I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of the parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing mercy to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments." (Exodus 20: 5,6) Come on now! I don't even know who any of my 16 great-great-grandparents were. If one of them said, "Damn you God!" I am to be held liable for his apostasy! That would be a really neurotic God who holds his grudges that long.

By the same token, if a truly faithful person, 1000 generations from now has a descendent who is totally ungodly, totally evil, totally sinful God promises to be kind to him. Surely, Adolf, Joe (Stalin) and Benito must have had somebody 1000 generations ago who was a pretty God-fearing character. One thousand generations ago is about 20,000 years. In that period of time one has accumulated a lot of ancestors. According to Scripture, Adolf, Joe, and Benito go free.

That doesn't make any sense to me. Only if one checks one's brains in the narthex of the nearest church can one subscribe to the idea that Scripture is inerrant.

So, those of you who want to save my soul and those of others, start reading the Bible with your brains intact.

If you really believe the Scriptures you would learn that one is to "love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength." (Mark 12:30, Matthew 22:37 and Luke 10:27 and sundry other passages in the Old Testament.)

****** [John Brand is a Purple Heart, Combat Infantry veteran of World War II. He received his Juris Doctor degree at Northwestern University and a Master of Theology and a Doctor of Ministry at Southern Methodist University. He served as a Methodist minister for 19 years, was Vice President, Birkman & Associates, Industrial Psychologists, and concluded his career as Director, Organizational and Human Resources, Warren-King Enterprises, an independent oil and gas company. He is the author of Shaking the Foundations.

John Brand encourages your comments: jbrand@YellowTimes.org

****** GNN is grateful to www.YellowTimes.org for permission to reprint this article. Many more fine articles by John Brand and the Yellow Times staff are archived at the Yellow Times website.

****** Global News Net is a free newsletter published by Dandelion Enterprises, Inc., Tempe, Arizona.

If others wish to subscribe to the free Global News Net newsletter, please have them click on global_news_net-subscribe@yahoogroups.com .

For archived issues of Global News Net, Archives GNN

With the exception of articles and other input bearing the by-line of Carol Adler, President of Dandelion Enterprises, Inc. and owner of Global News Net, the material presented in the GNN newsletters does not necessarily reflect the opinions and outlook of Dandelion Enterprises, Inc.

website: Dandelion Books

Who Really Was King James
author unknown

For the last three centuries Protestants have fancied themselves the heirs of the Reformation, the Puritans, the Calvinists, and the Pilgrims who landed at Plymouth Rock. This assumption is one of history's greatest ironies. Today, Protestants laboring under that assumption use the King James Bible. Most of the new Bibles such as the Revised Standard Version are simply updates of the King James.

The irony is that none of the groups named in the preceding paragraph used a King James Bible nor would they have used it if it had been given to them free. The Bible in use by those groups, until it went out of print in 1644, was the Geneva Bible. The first Geneva Bible, both Old and New Testaments, was first published in English in 1560 in what is now Geneva, Switzerland. William Shakespeare, John Bunyan, John Milton, the Pilgrims who landed on Plymouth Rock in 1620, and other luminaries of that era used the Geneva Bible exclusively.

Until he had his own version named after him, so did King James I of England. James I later tried to disclaim any knowledge of the Geneva Bible, though he quoted the Geneva Bible in his own writings. As a Professor Eadie reported it:

"...his virtual disclaimer of all knowledge up to a late period of the Genevan notes and version was simply a bold, unblushing falsehood, a clumsy attempt to sever himself and his earlier Scottish beliefs and usages that he might win favor with his English churchmen."

The irony goes further. King James did not encourage a translation of the Bible in order to enlighten the common people: his sole intent was to deny them the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible. The marginal notes of the Geneva version were what made it so popular with the common people.

The King James Bible was, and is for all practical purposes, a government publication. There were several reasons for the King James Bible being a government publication. First, King James I of England was a devout believer in the "divine right of kings," a philosophy ingrained in him by his mother, Mary Stuart. Mary Stuart may have been having an affair with her Italian secretary, David Rizzio, at the time she conceived James. There is a better than even chance that James was the product of adultery. Apparently, enough evidence of such conduct on the part of Mary Stuart and David Rizzio existed to cause various Scot nobles, including Mary's own husband, King Henry, to drag David Rizzio from Mary's supper table and execute him. The Scot nobles hacked and slashed at the screaming Rizzio with knives and swords, and then threw him off a balcony to the courtyard below where he landed with a sickening smack. In the phrase of that day, he had been scotched.

Mary did have affairs with other men, such as the Earl of Bothwell. She later tried to execute her husband in a gunpowder explosion that shook all of Edinburgh. King Henry survived the explosion only to be suffocated later that same night. The murderers were never discovered. Mary was eventually beheaded at the order of her cousin, Elizabeth I of England.

To such individuals as James and his mother, Mary, the "divine right of kings" meant that since a king's power came from God, the king then had to answer to no one but God. This lack of responsibility extended to evil kings. The reasoning was that if a king was evil, that was a punishment sent from God. The citizens should then suffer in silence. If a king was good, that was a blessing sent from God.

This is why the Geneva Bible annoyed King James I. The Geneva Bible had marginal notes that simply didn't conform to that point of view. Those marginal notes had been, to a great extent, placed in the Geneva Bible by the leaders of the Reformation, including John Knox and John Calvin. Knox and Calvin could not and cannot be dismissed lightly or their opinions passed off to the public as the mere ditherings of dissidents.

First, notes such as, "When tyrants cannot prevail by craft they burst forth into open rage" (Note i, Exodus 1:22) really bothered King James. Second, religion in James' time was not what it is today. In that era religion was controlled by the government. If someone lived in Spain at the time, he had three religious "choices:"

1. Roman Catholicism
2. Silence
3. The Inquisition

The third "option" was reserved for "heretics," or people who didn't think the way the government wanted them to. To governments of that era heresy and treason were synonymous. England wasn't much different. From the time of Henry VIII on, an Englishman had three choices:

1. The Anglican Church
2. Silence
3. The rack, burning at the stake, being drawn and quartered, or some other form of persuasion.

The hapless individuals who fell into the hands of the government for holding religious opinions of their own were simply punished according to the royal whim.

Henry VIII, once he had appointed himself head of all the English churches, kept the Roman Catholic system of bishops, deacons and the like for a very good reason. That system allowed him a "chain of command" necessary for any bureaucracy to function. This system passed intact to his heirs.

This system became a little confusing for English citizens when Bloody Mary ascended to the throne. Mary wanted everyone to switch back to Roman Catholicism. Those who proved intransigent and wanted to remain Protestant she burned at the stake - about 300 people in all. She intended to burn a lot more, but the rest of her intended victims escaped by leaving the country. A tremendous number of those intended victims settled in Geneva. Religious refugees from other countries in Western Europe, including the French theologian Jean Chauvin, better known as John Calvin, also settled there.

Mary died and was succeeded in the throne by her Protestant cousin, Elizabeth. The Anglican bureaucracy returned, less a few notables such as Archbishop Cranmer and Hugh Latimer (both having been burned at the stake by Bloody Mary). In Scotland, John Knox led the Reformation. The Reformation prospered in Geneva. Many of those who had fled Bloody Mary started a congregation there. Their greatest effort and contribution to the Reformation was the first Geneva Bible.

More marginal notes were added to later editions. By the end of the 16th century, the Geneva Bible had about all the marginal notes there was space available to put them in.

Geneva was an anomaly in 16th century Europe. In the days of absolute despotism and constant warfare, Geneva achieved her independence primarily by constant negotiation, playing off one stronger power against another. While other governments allowed lawyers to drag out cases and took months and years to get rid of corrupt officials, the City of Geneva dispatched most civil and criminal cases within a month and threw corrupt officials into jail the day after they were found out. The academy that John Calvin founded there in 1559 later became the University of Geneva. Religious wars wracked Europe. The Spanish fought to restore Roman Catholicism to Western Europe. The Dutch fought for the Reformation and religious freedom. England, a small country with only 4-1/2 million people, managed to stay aloof because of the natural advantage of the English Channel.

The Dutch declared religious freedom for everybody. Amsterdam became an open city. English Puritans arrived by the boatload. The 1599 Edition of the Geneva Bible was printed in Amsterdam and London in large quantities until well into the 17th century.

King James, before he became James I of England, made it plain that he had no use for the "Dutch rebels" who had rebelled against their Spanish King. Another irony left to us from the 16th century is that the freedom of religion and freedom of the press did not originate in England, as many people commonly assume today. Those freedoms were first given to Protestants by the Dutch, as the records of that era plainly show. England today does not have freedom of the press the way we understand it. (There are things in England such as the Official Secrets Act that often land journalists in jail.)

England was relatively peaceful in the time of Elizabeth I. There was the problem of the Spanish Armada, but that was brief. Elizabeth later became known as "Good Queen Bess," not because she was so good, but because her successor was so bad. Elizabeth died in 1603 and her cousin, James Stuart, son of Mary Stuart, who up until that time had been King James VI of Scotland ascended the throne and became known as King James I of England. James ascended the throne of England with the "divine right of kings" firmly embedded in his mind. Unfortunately, that wasn't his only mental problem.

King James I, among his many other faults, preferred young boys to adult women. He was a flaming homosexual. His activities in that regard have been recorded in numerous books and public records; so much so, that there is no room for debate on the subject. The King was queer.

The very people who use the King James Bible today would be the first ones to throw such a deviant out of the congregations.

The depravity of King James I didn't end with sodomy. James enjoyed killing animals. He called it "hunting." Once he killed an animal, he would literally roll about in its blood. Some believe that he practiced bestiality while the animal lay dying.

James was a sadist as well as a sodomite: he enjoyed torturing people. While King of Scotland in 1591, he personally supervised the torture of poor wretches caught up in the witchcraft trials of Scotland. James would even suggest new tortures to the examiners. 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.

History has it that James was also a great coward. On January 7, 1591, the king was in Edinburgh and emerged from the toll booth. A retinue followed that included the Duke of Lennox and Lord Hume. They fell into an argument with the laird of Logie and pulled their swords. James looked behind, saw the steel flashing, and fled into the nearest refuge which turned out to be a skinner's booth. There to his shame, he "fouled his breeches in fear."

In short, King James I was the kind of despicable creature honorable men loathed, Christians would not associate with, and the Bible itself orders to be put to death (Leviticus 20:13). Knowing what King James was we can easily discern his motives.

James ascended the English throne in 1603. He wasted no time in ordering a new edition of the Bible in order to deny the common people the marginal notes they so valued in the Geneva Bible. That James I wasn't going to have any marginal notes to annoy him and lead English citizens away from what he wanted them to think is a matter of public record. In an account corrected with his own hand dated February 10, 1604, he ordained:

That a translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek, and this to be set out and printed without any marginal notes, and only to be used in all churches of England in time of divine service. James then set up rules that made it impossible for anyone involved in the project to make an honest translation, some of which follow:

1. The ordinary Bible read in the church, commonly called the Bishop's Bible to be followed and as little altered as the truth of the original will permit.

2. Or, since the common people preferred the Geneva Bible to the existing government publication, let's see if we can slip a superseding government publication onto their bookshelves, altered as little as possible.

3. The old Ecclesiastical words to be kept, viz. the word "church" not to be translated "congregation," etc.

4. That is, if a word should be translated a certain way, let's deliberately mistranslate it to make the people think God still belongs to the Anglican Church - exclusively.

5. No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text.