Biblical Literalism Gone Mad

[CalliArcale]

I have problems with Biblical literalism, foremost among them the fact that the most ardent proponents of it tend not to understand the text very well in the first place (or to even think you *need* to; they generally think that understanding Jewish and Greek culture over 2,000 years ago is not important; all you need is the Bible, which obviously will be translated, since understanding the ancient forms of those languages is just as sissy as understanding their cultures). The staunchest advocates for literalism tend to be the religious right, and they also tend to be staunch conservatives as well. This is logical; their philosophy is to conserve, to stray from the status quo only cautiously. I have considerable sympathy for this philosophy; there is a lot of tactical wisdom to it. It's right up there with "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

The core of their philosophy is often the Bible. They believe passionately in the truth of the Bible, and so it becomes their ultimate arbiter of what is true. If something conflicts with the Bible, it should be, at the very least, treated with caution.

But as some of them grow ever more impassioned, and start searching the Bible more carefully to support their beliefs, they are starting to see problems. In particular, they're noticing that you can *interpret* the Bible. This alarms them, not because it means they may have interpreted it wrongly, but because others might interpret it wrongly. Do you think Jesus was against capital punishment? You're interpreting it wrong! And as these people are also very politically-minded, they have a theory for why you have interpreted it wrong. Don't worry; it's not your fault. You've been led astray by *liberal* *translations*.

And now they want to fix that. They are soliciting translators and rewriters (that's right -- you do not need to speak ancient Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic) to create a new translation. This, in and of itself, is not concerning. There are always new translations being produced, and I think that's wonderful because they all have different strengths and weaknesses. (Heck, even if you *were* an ancient Hebrew, there would be room for interpretation. Translation only compounds that problem.) What's concerning is that the primary purpose of this translation is to remove what they call "liberal bias". (Apparently inserting "conservative bias" is fine, because that's definitely what will happen. Every translator brings their own biases to the table, and theirs is pretty explicitly stated.)

So, to me, it appears that the most notorious of the Biblical literalists in America have decided that it is not enough to take the Bible literally. Even it does not meet their standards. It has to be rewritten, so that it does not uncomfortably challenge their convictions.

I am not sure whether to laugh or cry.

Slacktivist: Inevitable

[silylene]

Then, finally they can reset pi to be equal to three. We all know it was the liberal bias that made pi into an irrational and transcendental number, so imprecise and un-Godly !

30/10 = 3

I Kings 7:23-26, describing a large cauldron, in the Temple of Solomon:

He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it. Below the rim, gourds encircled it - ten to a cubit. The gourds were cast in two rows in one piece with the Sea. The Sea stood on twelve bulls, three facing north, three facing west, three facing south and three facing east. The Sea rested on top of them, and their hindquarters were toward the center. It was a handbreadth in thickness, and its rim was like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom. It held two thousand baths. (NIV)

[dragon04]

I dunno, Ms Calli. I don't think one can call these whack job would-be megalomaniacs "Conservatives". - I'M - a Conservative.

These are the Men Who Would Control. The Men Who Have Controlled. No, I don't mean Republicans. I mean old guys who have had absolute power over their congregations, their wives, their children, their schools and even their local businesses (think Pat Robertsons' call for boycotts of Proctor-Gamble among others) through use (or is it abuse) of the business end of God's Hammer the Holy Bible.

Guys who have passed that power on to their sons. The problem is that as a society, we're waking up. As we've seen in the areas of School Prayer, Abortion, Atheism, Gay Rights, etc, the Hard Right is on the run. They couldn't force Society to conform to their approved behaviors using the Bible as a blunt instrument, so now, they've decided that the next generation should be lied to via a Bible that suits their interpretation.

Is it a sinister plan with potential to cause great harm, or is this the last, desperate, laughable gasp of Men Who Would Control to avoid being footnotes in a dim, forgotten past?

I think it's the latter as opposed to the former, but as an Atheist, I really don't have a dog in the fight so I may take it more lightly than a person of Faith such as yourself.

.

[docm]

I think what they're talking about are biases introduced in various 'modern updates' of the Bible. We had something like this come up in our Lutheran church when a publisher decide to 'modernize' the text to PC norms and no one saw it coming.

[CalliArcale]

I dunno, Ms Calli. I don't think one can call these whack job would-be megalomaniacs "Conservatives". - I'M - a Conservative.

I didn't mean to refer to *all* conservatives, or even most. This is the religious right I'm talking about, and the extreme religious right at that. You may not call them conservatives, but they call *themselves* conservatives, and that perhaps should concern you, just as it concerns me that they call themselves Christians.

Christianity is not the only thing they are trying to hijack. Their other target is Conservatism. So though you are an atheist, you actually do have a dog in this fight, because these people aren't just trying to rewrite Christ. They're trying to claim Conservatism as an essentially Christian (*their* kind of Christian) enterprise.

I often have more sympathy for the conservative philosophy than the liberal one. It is the co-opting of "conservative" and "liberal" by organized religious and political entities that restrains me from actually calling myself a conservative or a liberal, along with the premise espoused by the more politically-polarized that one cannot hold views from both sides. (Which is, frankly, bollocks.) Or even a libertarian, and I have strong sympathies for that viewpoint as well. (I'm just cynical about mankind's ability at present to operate in a genuinely libertarian society -- above a certain population density, anyway -- without descending into anarchy.)

Guys who have passed that power on to their sons. The problem is that as a society, we're waking up. As we've seen in the areas of School Prayer, Abortion, Atheism, Gay Rights, etc, the Hard Right is on the run. They couldn't force Society to conform to their approved behaviors using the Bible as a blunt instrument, so now, they've decided that the next generation should be lied to via a Bible that suits their interpretation.

Is it a sinister plan with potential to cause great harm, or is this the last, desperate, laughable gasp of Men Who Would Control to avoid being footnotes in a dim, forgotten past?

I hope you are right, and there are favorable signs. Some of the commenters at the Slacktivist's blog expressed hope that this would be the move that would finally start seriously alienating fundamentalist Christians from this movement. Cause them to lose their core supporters, because what they are doing could be considered sacrilege to many of them. Those who ascribe to a particularly hellfire-and-damnation view of Revelations could see this very effort (the CBP) as an antichrist, perhaps even the precursor to the actual Antichrist. Lies with Scripture. If so, we may finally start to see some movement back towards the Republican Party's noble past, as the freaks expose themselves and drive away their supporters.

We can hope.

Mind you, this is hardly the first time someone has used the Bible to inject their own biases, for political benefit. Though largely a well-meaning effort, the King James Bible certainly had elements of this. (Ironically, the CBP is considering it a good source material. Better than those poisoned, "liberal" translations like the NIV or NRSV or NAB or others.) When you're working as a translator for a highly superstitious king whose whole life was steeped in the wars between Protestants and Catholics (specifically taking the Protestant side -- quite a different fellow from his deeply Catholic and highly educated mother, Mary, Queen of Scots), then you have certain *motivations*, shall we say, to translate things in a manner which will be beneficial to your patron. One of the more notable biases was putting more emphasis on the badness of witchcraft, which was a much bigger issue in the early 17th Century than it was in the First.

This always happens. What amazes me is the baldness of this attempt. If you read the main page of the project, their aims are quite explicit. They even intend to excise segments which are "too liberal" (though in many cases, I'd read those as far more conservative than liberal, perhaps because I like to read the actual *context*, which is the whole reason why you need to have the OT as well as the NT -- the Old Testament furnishes the context). Amazing. And they appear to have no shame, nor any sense of their own hypocrisy.

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to." (Matthew 23:13)

[CalliArcale]

I think what they're talking about are biases introduced in various 'modern updates' of the Bible. We had something like this come up in our Lutheran church when a publisher decide to 'modernize' the text to PC norms and no one saw it coming.

Yes, that's what they're talking about, but they mean it a bit more extensively than that. It's not just making it "PC". They want to take out the story about the adultress who was about to be stoned, for instance, which of course was introduced many centuries ago (very close to the time the books were first written, at least -- here we get into the challenging issue of figuring out which of the ancient texts are more "authentic"). Obviously this cannot have been introduced by "modern liberals", so why do they want it out? Because liberals use it to argue against the death penalty.

There are *always* biases introduced when making a translation. It's an inevitable part of the process. Even if you try to remain neutral on politics, how can you remain neutral on issues fundamental to the construction of your own mother tongue? You can certainly try, but nobody will ever achieve it. The only way to reduce it is to make sure the scholars doing the translation are very well trained, doing their very best to remain true to intent, making sure they understand the historical context so they can make a good faith effort to determine intent, and, as much as possible, get translators from a wide range of personal backgrounds so that hopefully their biases balance out.

This group is explicitly looking for people who share their biases, so they're only going to produce something *more* biased, not less. That's what, in my mind, makes this effort hypocritical. It's as bad as the "dumbed down" texts, and the PC texts.

[abq_farside]

Really what would do you expect. These are the same type of people that will make Jesus out as a European blond haired and blue eyed figure. My grandmother used to say that Jesus did not even have a beard and was always clean shaven - with the implication that liberals made him to look like a hippie.

Real Face of Jesus?



Edit: hum - the face of Jesus disappeared after I posted it (and previewed it). Lets try it again.

[silylene]

I wonder if Lilith will re-appear in Book of Isaiah 34:14 in the new 'literal translation'? Lilith seems to be in the original Hebrew Bible, but the King James Bible apparently conveniently mistranslated her inconvenient appearance as a 'screetch owl' .

(Lilith is the mythical first wife of Adam who was created from clay, and Lilith appears in several contemporaneous Sumerian writings and religious work, as well appearing multiple times in the Talmud, in contemporeneous Kabbalistic folklore, and in the Dead Sea Scrolls. According to the creation myths back then which were prevalent in the Middle East, after Adam spurned the bickering and headstrung Lilith, she later became a vindictive demon who visited newborns; and for Adam, after she left, a more complacent Eve was created from his rib.)

[drwayne]

One amplification to effects of time on text.

Even if the nominal language does not change, i.e. there is not cross language translation
involved, it is important to note that:

(1) Languages evolve (or devolve) in the way that the same words are used

(2) Language exists along with a common framework, a frame of reference of its time.
Stories that have additional meaning due to the shared understanding of current events
can easily lose that understanding as the history fades.

Wayne

[vogon13]

2 TIMOTHY 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2 PETER 1:20-21 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

JOHN 1:1,14
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

LUKE 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

JOHN 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.



Some Bible verses to contemplate in this interesting topic of Biblical Literalism.

Regarding translations, while I applaud folks who desire to study the Bible more, I must point out that any attempt by this group, if they are sincere and honest in their endeavor, will be a word for word recapitulation of the King James 1611 Bible.

God ordained and blessed the KJV1611 !!

The KJV1611 is neither conservative nor li(e)beral, it is God's Holy Word, perfectly presented and His True Word to us !!

[StarRider1701]

And now they want to fix that. They are soliciting translators and rewriters (that's right -- you do not need to speak ancient Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic) to create a new translation. This, in and of itself, is not concerning. There are always new translations being produced, and I think that's wonderful because they all have different strengths and weaknesses. (Heck, even if you *were* an ancient Hebrew, there would be room for interpretation. Translation only compounds that problem.) What's concerning is that the primary purpose of this translation is to remove what they call "liberal bias". (Apparently inserting "conservative bias" is fine, because that's definitely what will happen. Every translator brings their own biases to the table, and theirs is pretty explicitly stated.)

So, to me, it appears that the most notorious of the Biblical literalists in America have decided that it is not enough to take the Bible literally. Even it does not meet their standards. It has to be rewritten, so that it does not uncomfortably challenge their convictions.

I am not sure whether to laugh or cry.

I hate to break the news to you Calli, but the bible has long since been edited to suit the whim, will, fancy, or peity of the translator - for who can say "NO" to a King?
That's right, King James is noted for being the first to translate the Bible into English. But he also wielded condiderable editorital power, including leaving out several chapters that he considered unnecessary. He changed whatever he chose to so that it might be more in keeping with his ideas of piety. And he wasn't starting with original Jewish text, but a Greek text that had likely been translated from the Jewish into several other languages before the Greek. So many 'translation errors' were already in the text.
There was no "New Testiment" in the Original Jewish text.
King James also finished the process (he didn't start it) of completely removing the covenant names of Yahweh and Yeshua. That's right, there is no Jesus Christ, that is a name which was made up over 1,000 years after Yeshua died.

If you're not praying to Yahweh and his son Yeshua, then you're worshipping Satan, the Great Trickster thanks to his #1 Antichrist - King James!

[a_lost_packet_]

...I hate to break the news to you Calli, but the bible has long since been edited to suit the whim, will, fancy, or peity of the translator - for who can say "NO" to a King? That's right, King James is noted for being the first to translate the Bible into English.

No. The first translation was done by Wycliffe. The next real "Printing" was done by Tyndale and ultimately sparked a religious revolution. There's a great documentary on the History channel on the Tyndale bible. It's VERY AWESOME! The story there is grand, almost like a spy thriller with Tyndale and other pro-English bible printing notables running around all over Europe, illicit copies making their way out of various printing presses, secreted away in the dark of night in boxes packed in rowboats traveling across the English Channel.. great stuff! That documentary really brings the controversy to life. Highly recommended, two thumbs up, a real sleeper.

But he also wielded condiderable editorital power, including leaving out several chapters that he considered unnecessary. He changed whatever he chose to so that it might be more in keeping with his ideas of piety. And he wasn't starting with original Jewish text, but a Greek text that had likely been translated from the Jewish into several other languages before the Greek. So many 'translation errors' were already in the text.

Err, not quite. It was translated from several different texts, including Aramaic. Incoming wikis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized ... es_Version

While I agree that some of the translations could be biased towards the Church of England, in regards to the meaning of critical Bibilical issues, there aren't substantive deviations from the original texts. (IMO) King James did not authorize a "false translation."

There was no "New Testiment" in the Original Jewish text.

True. But, for instance, if Genesis was the first book chronologically written then there wouldn't have been any Exodus in the Bible at that time, would there?

King James also finished the process (he didn't start it) of completely removing the covenant names of Yahweh and Yeshua. That's right, there is no Jesus Christ, that is a name which was made up over 1,000 years after Yeshua died.

I do not believe that to be true. Even the name "Yahweh" is not, necessarily, a correct pronunciation of the original.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh (Yeah, more wikis...)

Jesus' last name isn't Christ. "Christ" is an honorific. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ


As far as Jesus "existing" there are several moments of direct translation where "Jesus" would be preferred over "Yehsua." Yet, both names appear in the Bible in several translations. Understand, this wasn't a book written by people that all collaborated together. Naturally, there are going to be places where there could be inconsistencies or apparent contradictions.

If you're not praying to Yahweh and his son Yeshua, then you're worshipping Satan, the Great Trickster thanks to his #1 Antichrist - King James!

That is a lie. If you are being so literal, how come you appear to be literally wrong in some cases?

In the end, what is it that matters? Yes, Christians should pay attention to their religion and how it came to be, including its history and controversies. But, because they are not doing what YOU say is right, using names that are arguably incorrect, they're worshiping Satan? Ridiculous.

[a_lost_packet_]

Literalists worry me. At times, it appears that they place more faith in their favorite translations and scholar's papers than they do in God. What is it that the Bible say's? Sure, that's their catchphrase, everything ultimately boils down to some obscure passage in the Bible or some stringent applications of a string of words.

Yet, they can read it but they can't apply it. They pound their lecturns, shouting out verbatim their favorite translations so loudly they can't even hear what it is the Bible is saying.

In my opinion, I believe that every literalist, every religious right-winger, every ultra-conservative religious wing-nut needs to spend the first few minutes of every day reading the Sermon on the Mount.

[wick07]

Calli, actually this concerned me about the entire "Conservapedia" project in general. I will admit, like anyone else, that encyclopedias may contain bias. Wikipedia, which the Conservapedia project specifically sites, definitely contains bias (however, I have never seen this bias as systematic, which is their assertion). In any case, while any encyclopedia "may" contain bias, Conservapedia clearly has bias, it's basically their charter.

While I have nothing against clearing the record, or trying to correct political bias, it is very concerning that their project begins from an ideological standpoint. So, when they see evidence that disputes their ideology, instead of questioning their assumptions, they will instead dismiss the evidence. This goes against every rule of scholarship and scientific inquiry.

The unfortunate part is, when their "encyclopedia" is not considered scholarly, they will simply dismiss this as liberal persecution against their conservative values. Thus they will never incorporate new ideas and only accept knowledge that reinforces what they have already decided is true.

Sorry about the rant, it just frustrates me to watch our society lose our ability to think critically (this goes for both sides, not just conservatives by the way). We are slowly becoming a set of intellectual cliques, each sifting data solely for the purpose of reinforcing unquestioned assumptions; all the while screaming at the top of our lungs that we alone know the answers to the world problems.

[vogon13]

Overlooked in this brouhaha is the groups right, guaranteed by the 1st Amendment, to do precisely what they said they are going to do. Ponder for a moment other liberties taken with Scripture by 'mainline' denominations; Catholics reparsing the 10 Commandments, Mormons adding(!!!!) an entire Gospel, Lutherans 'ordaining' practicing Sodomites, I could go on for weeks with the vile outrages !!

A great battle is underway for the souls of America, the unGodlyâ„¢ revel in their debaucheries !! Take heed God's True Word as witnessed by Landover Baptist, and join the Saved !!



.

[wick07]

Overlooked in this brouhaha is the groups right, guaranteed by the 1st Amendment, to do precisely what they said they are going to do. Ponder for a moment other liberties taken with Scripture by 'mainline' denominations; Catholics reparsing the 10 Commandments, Mormons adding(!!!!) an entire Gospel, Lutherans 'ordaining' practicing Sodomites, I could go on for weeks with the vile outrages !!

A great battle is underway for the souls of America, the unGodlyâ„¢ revel in their debaucheries !! Take heed God's True Word as witnessed by Landover Baptist, and join the Saved !!



.

Thank you Vogon, for keeping my concerns in persepctive!

[CalliArcale]

VOGON!!!! You're back!

*tacklepouncehuggles*

Of course they have the right to do this. They have every bit as much right as the folks who wrote the LOLCat Bible. I'm just amazed at their own hypocrisy in doing so. Of course bias is not new, nor are deliberately biased translations. But it depresses me a little that such things are not a relic of bygone days.

wick07 hits the nail on the head, IMHO. The CBP and Conservapaedia itself are both disturbing because they are responding to a perceived bias by imposing an *overt* bias, and then claiming that theirs is therefore more noble. One glimmer of hope is that these efforts have not been especially successful. Conservapaedia is barely known. The CBP is unlikely to ever be completed. And those who do notice these efforts largely laugh at them. So while these people clearly suffer from a deficiency of critical thought, this does not mean that the public at large does.

[vogon13]

My heart was gladdened to see this report this AM:




A Baptist Church near Asheville, N.C., is hosting a "Halloween book burning" to purge the area of "Satan's" works, which include all non-King James versions of the Bible, popular books by many religious authors and even country music.


The website for the Amazing Grace Baptist Church in Canton, N.C., says there are "scriptural bases" for the book burning. The site quotes Acts 19:18-20: "And many that believed, came and confessed and shewed their deeds. Many of them also which used curious arts, brought their books together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver. So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed."


Church leaders deem Good News for Modern Man, the Evidence Bible, the New International Version Bible, the Green Bible and the Message Bible, as well as at least seven other versions of the Bible as "Satan's Bibles," according to the website. Attendees will also set fire to "Satan's popular books" such as the work of "heretics" including the Pope, Mother Teresa, Billy Graham and Rick Warren.


"I believe the King James version is God's preserved, inspired, inerrant and infallible word of God," Pastor Marc Grizzard told a local news station of his 14-member parish.





Join with me in commending Pastor Grizzard for his efforts in freeing the world of blasphemous tomes such as all the Harry Potter spew, vile Books of Mormon, heretical Catholic Apocryphas, and as much Pastafarian abominations as they can get their hands on !!

[wick07]

Ironically, Christianity has a very weak claim at biblical literalism. Even in the best cases we cannot produce original copies (or even copies that can be legitimately claimed as "perfect" copies). The best claim of scriptural literalism belongs to the followers of Islam, who have done a remarkable good job at preserving the original language of the Qur'an.

[doublehelix]

My heart was gladdened to see this report this AM:

A Baptist Church near Asheville, N.C., is hosting a "Halloween book burning" to purge the area of "Satan's" works, which include all non-King James versions of the Bible, popular books by many religious authors and even country music.

I read about this via a posting elsewhere, sourced from Raw Story. My favorite part of the article:

Church leaders did not respond to Raw Story's requests for comment, but the website notes they will be providing "bar-b-que chicken, fried chicken and all the sides" at the book burning.

What a bunch of nutters.

-dh