I like to think I've always had a good relationship with God. I may not have been perfect, but I always talked to him, and I believe our relationship is special. Being the inquisitive child/adult I was, I questioned his existence sometimes, but in the end I always came to the conclusion that God is real...But there is ONE thing I always seem to have trouble accepting, and that's the Bible.
In order to understand where I'm coming from, you first have to understand the separation in my mind between God and the Bible. For some, the two are intertwined, synonymous, and walk hand in hand. For me, this isn't the case. My faith in God is strong, and immeasurable. My faith in the Bible, this man-made book...not so much. Before you label me an athiest or a heathen or blasphemer, hear me out. lol.
(A) It begins with the creation of the "King James Version" (the most widely circulated version) of the Bible. If the Bible was made from the direct words of God, why is there a 'VERSION' by the name of a king who ruled in the 17th century? So I did some research:
"The Authorized King James Version is an English translation by the Church of England of the Christian Bible begun in 1604 and completed in 1611.[3] First printed by the King's Printer, Robert Barker,[4][5] this was the third such official translation into English; the first having been the Great Bible commissioned by the Church of England in the reign of King Henry VIII, and the second having been the Bishop's Bible of 1568.[6] In January 1604, King James I of England convened the Hampton Court Conference where a new English version was conceived in response to the perceived problems of the earlier translations as detected by the Puritans,[7] a faction within the Church of England.[8]
James gave the translators instructions intended 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.[9] The translation was by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England.[10] In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from Greek, the Old Testament was translated from Hebrew text, while the Apocrypha were translated from the Greek and Latin.
In the Book of Common Prayer (1662), the text of the Authorized Version replaced the text of the Great Bible – for Epistle and Gospel readings – and as such was authorized by Act of Parliament.[11] By the first half of the 18th century, the Authorized Version was effectively unchallenged as the English translation used in Anglican and other Protestant churches. Over the course of the 18th century, the Authorized Version supplanted the Latin Vulgate as the standard version of scripture for English speaking scholars."
First of all, I think God would provide us with a translated Bible, just so there wouldn't be any misunderstandings. But for the sake of argument, let's just say he didn't. Why did it need to be translated THREE times? What changes are being made? What's being revised? I see no need to proofread or edit something you claim are direct quotes from the mouth of God...UNLESS you are conforming it to your preexisting beliefs. And that is exactly what happened. So how am I to trust this book that had to be rewritten repeatedly until it met the standards of The Church of England? There were even earlier 'translations' of the Bible, but they were rejected and banned because of the religious affiliation of the translators. Now we're left with the 'translation' of the Bible that has been accepted over all the other translations because The Church of England destroyed all other versions. Does that make it more accurate and holy?
(B) My second grievance is with the inconsistencies and the things that just flat out don't make sense.
1. While describing the same incident, 2 Samuel 8:4 states that King David captured 1700 horsemen, and 1 Chron. 18:4 claims he captured 7,000...If God is the one recounting this story, why are the numbers so drastically different?
2. Genesis 6:15 states that Noah's ark was 300 cubits by 50 cubits by 30 cubits in size. We know that a cubit was approximately 18 inches, yielding a volume (if perfectly rectangular, the most voluminous possible shape of three unequal dimensions) of 1,518,750 cubic feet. Into this, you must fit two of each of the 30,000,000 species on earth, plus all the food needed to keep all of them alive for about a year (add up the timeline).
If this were true, it would not be physically possible to put two of each animal species on earth, plus a years' worth of food for all of them, in a volume of that size. Not to mention you would have to travel to each continent to get each species. You've got to go to Antarctica to get penguins, the Arctic to get polar bears, Asia to get tigers, Australia to get kangaroos, Africa to get gorillas, South America to get tapirs and agoutis, etc. What was the climate on this ark? Polar bears can't live in the same conditions as gorillas, they will die. But we just have to accept this explanation, because "it's in the Bible".
3. Jeremiah 3:12 "...for I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger forever."
Jeremiah 17:4 "Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall be forever."
...So now I'm confused. Is God able to be angry forever or not??
4. Genesis 32:30 "Jacob said, 'I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.'"
John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time."
...Again, I'm confused, for obvious reasons.
5. This one is taken from a discussion in a forum, but I referred to the verses, and it's correct:
"Of all the contradictions and inconsistencies in the Bible, few make more of a mess of things than the four accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection as given in the four gospels.
Here we have a single narrative, told by four different authors, that is so contradictory that I've never seen an explanation of it. It will be interesting to see the fundamentalists untangle this mess. For the sake of brevity, we'll just pick up the story on that first Easter Sunday:
When the sun was coming up (Matt. 28:1) while it was still dark (John 20:1), Mary Magdalene (John 20:1) or Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Matt 28:1) or "the women" [note the plural] (Luke 24:1) went to the tomb. There was an earthquake, and an angel came down and rolled the stone away (Matt. 28:2) from the entrance of the tomb and sat on it, even though it had apparently already been rolled away when Mary Magdalene had got there (John 20:1, Mark 16:4, Luke 24:2). The reason for the visit was to anoint the body with spices (Mark 16:1, Luke 24:1) or just to look at the tomb (Matt. 28:1), take your pick.
When she or they, take your pick, arrived, she/they witnessed the earthquake and angel coming down from heaven (Matt. 28:1), or they walked into the tomb to discover a young man dressed in white sitting on the right (Mark 16:5) or two men in bright shining clothes (Luke 24:4), take your pick.
At this point, John says that Mary had run back to fetch Peter and another disciple. The other gospel writers make no mention of Mary taking leave of the tomb to go back and get any of the men at this point.
If/when she/they returned, the angel (Mark 15:6) or the angels (Luke 24:5) is/are quoted by the gospel writers as having said one of three things. Either "He is not here, he is raised, just as he said." (Matt. 28:6) or "He is not here, he has been raised." (Mark 15:6, Luke 24:6) or "Woman, why are you crying?" (John 20:13).
So the woman or women ran from the tomb to tell the disciples (Matt. 28:8) or they left, too terrified to say anything to anyone (Mark 16:8), take your pick.
Mary Magdalene saw Jesus appear to her and decided he'd been resurrected (John 20:14-18). Or the women, having left the tomb and thinking things over, were sure that Jesus' body had been stolen, so they tried to bribe the soldiers guarding the tomb to tell them where the body had been taken (Matt. 28:11-15).
I'm sorry, but at this point, the stories diverge so completely, it is not possible to correlate them any further. But that's OK, because by now, you get the point."
6. Any fool out there knows dinosaurs existed. That much is undeniable. So why isn't it mentioned in the Bible? God knows there were dinosaurs, but MAN didn't know that when the Bible was "translated" in the 17th century (first dinosaur remains weren't discovered until the 19th century).
(C) My Third (and final, for the sake of this post not being unbearably long) issue is with the way the Bible has been used by man. You don't need the Bible to justify love, but no better tool has been invented to justify hate. It has been used to enslave, abuse, and kill people. I truly believe the Bible was a creation by man to manipulate people's love of God. People who have good, kind hearts and wish to do nothing more than serve Him, are presented with this book that, they are told, has been written by God himself. And they believe. For hundreds of years they believe. And this belief has been used against them time and time again, but they don't dare speak against it because in their minds God and the Bible are one, and to them, disagreeing with it is the same as denying Him.
"The Bible – A Fairytale book of rules brainwashing millions. Obliviously used to help create war, kill, hate, judge and discriminate. – Anonymous"
Again, let me emphasize my belief in God. But I truly believe he just shakes his head and laughs every time we grab The King James Version of the Bible to build a relationship with Him instead of just TALKING to him. I think it may hurt him a bit whenever one of us uses this book to degrade, judge, or manipulate another person. If more of us would put down that action-packed novel, I'm sure we would realize that we're all praising the same omnipotent being, and there's no need to fight over it. Religion is irrelevant, but a strong belief in a higher power (no matter what you call him) and a desire to live right is all we need...But then again, what do I know?
-Mischa Nicole
No comments:
Post a Comment