"Hell, if granny doesn't know, do you think I will?!"
Warning: This post may rile your feathers, piss you off, or you may want to stone me, but this is my blog so...
SHUT THE HELL UP or CLOSE THE DAMN WINDOW!!!
Any true scholar has an open mind. Not so open that your brains fall on the floor, but you are open to learn. Well, this scholar was forced into taking theology classes at Rockhurst University by an atheist. Before you gasp and write angry letters to the university saying how atheists shouldn't be allowed to teach a class on theology, open your mind. In my opinion, atheists are great unbiased teachers. It's not that they are devil worshipers, they just don't believe in anything. They teach facts. I like facts. Before you go getting all bent out of shape, I am also a Christian & I believe in faith (it's even tat'd on my wrist in Arabic).
As a child, I was raised by two parents who met in theology school. I figured they should know everything there is to know. Problem is, they had to much faith and not enough facts. My biggest question was always, how the Bible was written. The answer I always received was: Prophets were inspired by God. Call me cynical, but that answer just simply isn't acceptable to an inquisitive mind. My next question, was how? I imagined prophets sitting in a room lit with a single candle and a quil pen as God spoke to them. At times, I hear the voice of God, but it sure isn't enough to write a whole book about. Maybe I'm just not prophetic enough.
I finally got my answer in 2006.
The Bible was writen over a course of many many MANY years. Each book of the Bible has a specific purpose and an agenda. The scrolls were collected and stored at churches, then the version known as the King James Version was translated during his rule...around 1611. Take a break from reading my blog and Wiki: Authorized King James Version. I'll wait....
I'm not doubting that the men who actually wrote the original words of the Bible aren't holy, but I'm questioning the intent of the 47 scholars that edited this holy book. I quote:
"The king gave the translators instructions designed to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy."
If this doesn't raise questions in your mind, I don't know what does. The purpose of this post is NOT to turn people away from God, I'm just raising questions & looking for answers. I'm no historian, but I know for a fact that rulers don't always have the purest intentions in mind. They often use their power to push their own beliefs on others. I also know for a fact that the original Bible consisted of several more books that have mysteriously dissapeared. What information did those books contain? How much of the original content from the surviving books, actually made it into this version that so many Christians hold dear to their hearts? What exactly was the Church of England's "ecclesiology" and "episcopal structure" in 1604 when translation began?
My next concern has to do with the actual translation of the Bible. I'm speaking of the very first step: Translating the books of the Bible from their original languages into English.
I studied Latin for 3 years and Spanish for 3 years. I know how difficult the process of translating things can be. Among the obvious roadblocks and plain 'ol human error, think about the words in other languages that simply don't exist in English. English doesn't even have a direct equivalent word for them. I can give you a few examples:
- Waldeinsamkeit (German): the feeling of being alone in the woods
- Ilunga (Tshiluba, Congo): a person who is ready to forgive any abuse for the first time, to tolerate it a second time, but never a third time
- Esprit de l’escalier (French): a witty remark that occurs to you too late, literally on the way down the stairs…
My last concern is about the actual content in the Bible. I've heard several conflicting instructions. A few pastors have told me that the Old Testament is the "Old Law" and is no longer followed. You should only follow the New Testament, the "New Law." I don't think all Christians got the memo.
After you figure out weither to pay attention to both testaments or pick just one, you have to then choose which instructions to follow and which to classify as outdated and ignore. One verse in the Bible says you shouldn't play with the skin of a pig. Does that mean football players are comiting a sin? Another part says women should not dress in men's clothing. Pant suits were once considered mens clothing. Do I need to ask God for forgiveness for owning a few? Should protestors be stationed outside of Express, The Limited, and Banana Republic for selling them? It only seems fair since they stand outside of Planned Parenthood and harass pregnant women.
What gives any one the right to choose to ignore these principles but follow principles that deem sex before marriage or same-sex unions a sin? In stating this, I'm not stating any of my personal beliefs. I'm merely asking questions.
Google: Inconsistencis in the Bible
The list is endless. I don't feel the need to elaborate.
IN CONCLUSION
I am more spiritual than religious. I beleive in a close and personal relationship with God/Jesus. I believe in prayer or just having a conversation with him. I take the Bible for what it is. I think it contains great stories of how God has worked in people's lives. It's kinda like one big book of testimonies. I believe it can be a great source of wisdom, but I'm not going to follow it to the letter. If that makes me a bad Christian then oh well. God knows my heart. The part I will follow to the letter is the 10 Commandments. They make the most sense to me and I whole-heartidly believe that God wrote them himself. If you notice, they aren't judgemental, they don't condem other people, and most center around the famous Golden Rule. In my opinion, that's what Christianity is all about. God's love.
Posts
