If Isaiah predicted the birth and death of Jesus hundreds of years before his birth in such a clear manner as you suppose, why is it that only Christians and not Jews see that prediction?

Not everyone believes at the same time or at the same rate. Even now, there are many Jews who believe and are believing, for example, Jews for Jesus (Jewsforjesus.org).

Also, the New Testament was written predominately by Jews. It predicts that even more Jews will believe. The story is still unfolding.

Part 2

Reading different histories of the US by different writers will show immediately that there are huge differences in what is portrayed as "accurate" American history, depending on the starting assumptions of the writer. For instance to take just one example: IS AMERICA A CHRISTIAN NATION? There are two widely diverse positions on this subject, and it affects all of the history which follows. Read John Bennet's history of America vice that of Howard Zinn's account, as another.

My response to the first issue is: how can anyone claim that his or her version of American history gets to use the Bible as warrant for the authority of their version of the bible? Why does any one view of what a patriot is get to claim the force of scripture?

The second issue is: Does an American Patriot read any other text than the NKJV? Does it help in the "bible wars" that American patriotism is loaded into this issue? Why should those who read another version of the Bible be tagged as perhaps *not* patriots. Many churches do NOT read the NKJV. There are questions about the accuracy of the texts, and the issues of English language chosen (all translations are art. What does "man" mean, for example? Is it simply equal to "humankind"...or does "man" mean...not woman? Sometimes the position one takes depends on whether one is male or female.). Those predominantly who do NOT use the NKJV include the Roman Catholic Church, the mainline Protestant Churches, including Episcopal, Lutheran, most Methodist and Presbyterian and several other churches. Are these denominations NOT patriots? German Lutherans fought in the Revolutionary War, and Episcopalians and Catholics, among others, have been in the US since long before the country was a nation. If true patriots use the NKJV, then this adds a whole level of suspicion among different Christian churches, and at a time when some fundamentalist clergy and laity are quick to see some denominations as "more Christian" than others. We do not need this sort of division in society.

In short, I am willing to believe that this was conceived as a pious marketing niche item that would be attractive to certain segments of Christians in the US. I believe, however, that it is not helpful in the larger picture, and that this was an unnecessary (except to sell bible!) product with unfortunate consequences.

Pr Chris

Part I

Again, I think some have misunderstood what the American Patriot Bible is and is not:

It IS a complete English New King James Version of the bible.

The APB has taken this complete, standard NKJV bible, and added to it, essays and historical accounts of American history, interspersed in the biblical accounts. These essays are scattered throughout the bible, not gathered at the beginning or end. In the same manner, when I was a child, many bibles of my youth often had color pictures inserted at various points in the biblical story. This is often how kids got that picture of the freshly washed and combed blond Jesus with blue eyes...Thus, if the history of the Battle of Gettysburg (for an illustration, since I don't remember exactly WHERE it is inserted) is inserted in the midst of the great prophets of Israel, does this make any claims about prophesy? If not, why put it there?

The problem, as I see it, is two fold:

1. The supplementary materials on American history are often portraying a quite conservative starting point and assumes that one will accept the point of view of those essays as the "true" or "correct" understanding of America's history. Thus, the claim is: THIS is the way American history is to be understood by true Patriots.

Pr Chris

Carstonio:

You say: The Bible has never been wrong in any of its predictions, something that no other religion can claim. For example, Isaiah predicted, in details, the circumstances of the birth and death of Jesus hundreds of years before they happened. Does that suffice?

No. If Isaiah predicted the birth and death of Jesus hundreds of years before his birth in such a clear manner as you suppose, why is it that only Christians and not Jews see that prediction?

I would assert that the assumptions with which you start: Jesus IS the Messiah, the one predicted by the prophets, allows you to see that link. If you do not START with that assumption, you will not see the connections in the same way. (Otherwise, all Jews would be Christians...)

The Letter to the Hebrews defines as belief faith or trust in what cannot be seen or proved. That is why "belief" is not "knowledge". I may "know" for myself that my "belief" is true, but I cannot prove for an unbeliever that it is true. I can only ask him or her to take a leap of faith and test it.

Pr Chris

Carstonio:

You say:

CalSailor, my point about alien races was a more general one, with the Christian or Jewish or deist god creating all races. Your point about the Garden of Eden would be a valid objection if one reads Genesis literally, and many Christians and Jews read it allegorically.

I nowhere claim that the requirement to understand the Garden of Eden is a literal prerequisite to the validity of the position I wrote from. It was a shorthand for explaning the one of only two possibilities for any creation (or world) of the creator: it is either in the state in which it was created and is still in that harmony, or something has happened to damage or destroy that relationship.

On earth, the current situation which exists is: the creation is damaged from the creator's point of view. It doesn't matter if the Garden of Eden is read allegorically or literally (and I tend to real all of Gen 1-11 as etiology, as answering the questions of every people: Who are we, how did we get here, what is the meaning of our lives, etc. It is not literal history. That concept did not exist for thousands of years since the origins of these first chapters of Genesis.)

The fundamental question for the hypothetical other words and their relation to its creator. The G-d whom I believe to be the creator of all things and all worlds loves and cares for all his creation. Therefore, should the relationship be damaged, even though it is damaged as a result of what his creatures have done, the loving G-d will restore it, in his own time and way. On earth we call that the sending of the Messiah and the restoration of the creation. What they call it on any other world, well, we'll just have to wait and ask.

Pr Chris

Personally, I have always had trouble with the canonization of the Bible in 393AD. It seems to me that the Christian faith took a real nose dive at that point. The diversity of Christian faiths was squashed and replaced by an institutionalized, monolithic faith. It strikes me as a power play, rather than a moment of divine insight.

What's more, by canonizing the the Bible, the scripture was locked in time... a time that grows more distant with each passing year. This dooms the Bible to become increasingly anachronistic and meaningless as the years go by.

I have always felt the canonization of the Bible served (and continues to serve) traditionalists and conservatives more than progressives. By it's very nature of being locked in bygone time, the Bible is intrinsically conservative in nature.

For this reason, I find it ironic that the one who would dare to re-write the Bible is a conservative. Rev. Lee, it would seem, is far more progressive than his liberal counterparts.

Carstonio,

You asked
""The Bible says that the fact of his existence is evidenced by nature "
Would you provide a citation?"

Romans chapter 1

You also say,
"The point here is to strip away assumptions as much as possible."

To do this is to take away the only means of understanding the natural world. Everything starts with assumptions influenced by experience and culture.

As well,
"The hypothesis has to successfully predict new data, or else one should revise or discard the hypothesis.It's pointless to hold a belief about something without testing the belief."

The Bible has never been wrong in any of its predictions, something that no other religion can claim. For example, Isaiah predicted, in details, the circumstances of the birth and death of Jesus hundreds of years before they happened. Does that suffice?

Then,
"Beliefs about gods are inherently untestable since they are unfalsifiable."

That is what I have been trying to say each time I said it is a matther of what you choose to believe; it is a matter of faith.

"So where does that leave you? It is what you choose to believe"

Belief is a type of certainty, which disregards skepticism. Certainty means that we close ourselves off to data that might challenge our assumptions. One should always acknowledge the possibility that one's conclusions may be wrong, and one should always anticipate new data that may contradict one's conclusions. Belief is a closed thought system where data is merely adapted into a worldview. One would see gods in nature if one assumed gods exist.

"You and I both know that outside of religion, there have been so-called objective facts agreed upon by the scientific community that have turned out to be not the facts, and ultimately not objective, but was accepted as such simply because "scientific, logical minds" came to a consensus that they were so."

That's not quite accurate. It doesn't recognize the existence of the empirical method. It falsely implies that scientists create hypotheses based on whatever sounds good to them, without testing the hypotheses. But I would agree that there have been many cases where some scientists resisted hypotheses that were confirmed by evidence because of how they felt about the hypotheses emotionally.

The point here is not necessarily what constitutes objective fact, but that objective fact exists. The factualness of anything has nothing to do with what humans think or feel about it - the fact would be true or false even if humans didn't exist.

"So there is a reality we are yet to grasp and we know this because the Spirit reveals it to us. By faith we accept this to be true."

No claim of fact should be exempt from scrutiny. Everything should be questioned, not automatically rejected but not automatically accepted either. While it's certainly possible that there is more to the universe than we can perceive, we have no basis for claiming to know that there is more, and we also have no basis for claiming to know that there isn't more.

"The Bible says that the fact of his existence is evidenced by nature "

Would you provide a citation? That assumes that the Bible is inherently authoritative. It sounds like the assumptions that drive intelligent design, such as the assumption that order and complexity can only be designed.

"You may choose not to believe this and it will never make any sense to you regardless of what anyone says. "

The point here is to strip away assumptions as much as possible, to avoid building systems of internal logic that depend on stacking assumptions on top of one another. The test of the factualness of any hypothesis is not whether it "makes sense." The hypothesis has to successfully predict new data, or else one should revise or discard the hypothesis. It's pointless to hold a belief about something without testing the belief. Beliefs about gods are inherently untestable since they are unfalsifiable - they're drawn so broadly as to encompass any data that may possibly be found. It's the equivalent of a role-playing game enthusiast creating a character that would have the power to defeat any character that other players could possibly create.

CalSailor, my point about alien races was a more general one, with the Christian or Jewish or deist god creating all races. Your point about the Garden of Eden would be a valid objection if one reads Genesis literally, and many Christians and Jews read it allegorically.

CalSailor,

You said,

"The G-d who creates, loves his creation. Therefore those of us on this world can be confident there is a plan for other worlds."

Well said

Carstonio,

"The idea of revelation tied to cultural experience sounds almost like an argument against objective fact, as if factualness were a matter of choice."

You and I both know that outside of religion, there have been so-called objective facts agreed upon by the scientific community that have turned out to be not the facts, and ultimately not objective, but was accepted as such simply because "scientific, logical minds" came to a consensus that they were so. In those instances, "factualness" was certainly a choice. They were scrutinizing the evidence objectively and still came up with the wrong conclusion. This suggests that there is no reliability here as well.

The Bible tells us that in our present existence, we see things as if we are looking through a dirty glass window, not clearly. So there is a reality we are yet to grasp, and we know this because the Spirit reveals it to us. By faith, we accept this to be true.

A miracle is the actualizations of the “impossible” and the “improbable.” It easily defies our senses and intuitions; it frustrates our strictest scrutiny; it skillfully eludes our most astute minds; it effortlessly confounds the wisest among us. God is the consummate miracle worker. I choose to believe him.

Regarding the objectivity of God across all religions, the Bible says that the fact of his existence is evidenced by nature but people refuse to believe, and instead, attribute their existence to objects of nature and to inanimate idols.

You, or the men from Mars, may choose not to believe this and it will never make any sense to you regardless of what anyone says. In the end, it is a matter of faith. So where does that leave you? It is what you choose to believe; it is what you choose to place your faith in.

I've been wondering for years when the Christfascisti would finally get around to this. Anyone familiar with the religious right knew it was coming eventually. Oh, if we could just get rid of that major sissy moonbat lib Jesus Christ!

Carstonio:

You say:

When one claims that gods exist, one is making a claim of objective fact that would include the entire universe - if Christianity is correct, Martians and Tau Cetians and any other hypothetical alien races would be required to believe in and worship the Christian deity.

Not necessarily. The question of Christianity's relationship to other worlds has been the subject of discussion of both theologians AND science fiction fans.

The issue is this: The Messiah is the result of the consequences of the Garden of Eden and the Fall. Thus, for Martians, Klingons, etc., the question is: What is the relationship between their race and the creator (same creator, but not necessarily Garden of Eden in their past.) Essentially the issue is:

1. Creation, no Garden of Eden. No need of Messiah.
2. Creation, equivalent of Garden of Eden, the situation on earth. On earth, the G-d who created has sent the Messiah, if one is Christian; if one is Jewish, one is confident that in G-d's time he WILL send Messiah. In either case, G-d will not leave his people hopeless. In the case of Martians, Klingons, etc., G-d will send THEM a Messiah. The G-d who creates, loves his creation. Therefore those of us on this world can be confident there is a plan for other worlds.

Pr Chris

For anyone interested, find Arthur Clarke's "The Star". Fascinating story.

Carstonio,

"The idea of revelation tied to cultural experience sounds almost like an argument against objective fact, as if factualness were a matter of choice."

You and I both know that outside of religion, there have been so-called objective facts agreed upon by the scientific community that have turned out to be not the facts, and ultimately not objective, but was accepted as such simply because "scientific, logical minds" came to a consensus that they were so. In those instances, "factualness" was certainly a choice. They were scrutinizing the evidence objectively and still came up with the wrong conclusion. This suggests that there is no reliability there as well.

So where does that leave you? It is what you chose to believe; it is what you place your faith in.

The Bible tells us that in our present existence, we see things as if we are looking through a dirty glass window, not clearly. So there is a reality we are yet to grasp and we know this because the Spirit reveals it to us. By faith we accept this to be true.

Regarding the objectivity of God across all religions. The Bible says that the fact of his existence is evidenced by nature but people refuse to believe and instead attribute their existence to objects in nature and to inanimate idols.

You may choose not to believe this and it will never make any sense to you regardless of what anyone says.

MGT2,

"Discrepancies do not negate the fact of the events"

That would be true if we knew that we had multiple eyewitnesses, as you mentioned. We can't assume that with scripture. In the case of the Gospels, we can't assume that the texts were written by eyewitnesses, since scholars say that these were probably written down decades after the purported events. And we don't have accounts for the miracles from non-Christian sources. Part of the issue is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

"it is possible that all the claims of Judeo-Christians are true"

It's also possible that all the claims of Shintoists are true, or Hindus or animists or deists. No religion is special or unique in that regard.

"The Bible does not try to prove to anyone that it is accurate because that is not its purpose."

Whatever its purpose, it makes claims of objective fact regarding the existence of life forms and miracles. Any claim of objective fact about anything deserves to be scrutinized.

Getting back to CalSalior,

"Lived faith of the community" and "experience of generations" do not constitute objective fact about things or entities. If gods exist, then this would be factual no matter what culture we were talking about. With Passover, the issue is not what the holiday means to Jews. The issue is whether the Jewish deity did indeed kill the Egyptian first-born while passing over the Israelite first-born. The meaning exists in human minds separately from whatever is factual about the event (did it happen or did it not happen). I'm not disregarding meanings, merely emphasizing that they're subjective and distinct from objective fact.

When one claims that gods exist, one is making a claim of objective fact that would include the entire universe - if Christianity is correct, Martians and Tau Cetians and any other hypothetical alien races would be required to believe in and worship the Christian deity. The idea of revelation tied to cultural experience sounds almost like an argument against objective fact, as if factualness were a matter of choice.

Carstonio

You said
"From the standpoint of my hypothetical visitor from Mars, all religions would have an equal burden of proving their claims to be accurate..."

Actually, Christianity does not really share that burden. The Bible does not try to prove to anyone that it is accurate because that is not its purpose.

The goal of the Bible is to tell us that God is, that he speaks to people, that he created all there is, seen and unseen, that we need him and that through his love for us, he has provided a way for us to be reconciled to him.

We are given a choice to believe or not to believe, and to accept the consequences of those choices.

Christianity bears no burden of proof. We either believe or we do not.

Carstonio

"That assumes that there is a particular version that qualifies as unredacted and unembellished. There are many discrepancies among the ancient manuscripts and among the translations over the centuries."

The only assumption is that the events actually occurred.

Discrepancies do not negate the fact of the events, again, as Calsailor so succinctly stated.

Take, for example, several eyewitness accounts of any event. Depending on each person's vantage point, there will be as many versions and interpretations of the event as there are witnesses. This phenomenon has been established through empirical data. But, however varied the accounts and the interpretations, the fact that the event occurred is not in doubt.

The issue is not the accounts, but the event.

And, given the possibility that the event of God speaking to people truly occurred, it is possible that all the claims of Judeo-Christians are true; discrepancies notwithstanding.

Part 2:

"we rely on the historical accounts of those who were"

Why assume that those accounts are 100 percent factual or even reliable? No one treats Homer's works as factual. Even though there's evidence that Troy existed, no one treats that as evidence that Zeus or Athena exist. Scholars agree that some of the Iliad may be factual, but it's overlaid with myth and legend. The book still has cultural importance. There's no reason to treat the Bible or any other scripture any differently in historical and cultural terms. People can find some of the moral teachings in any scripture to have value, but that proves nothing about the factual accuracy of the purported historical accounts.

"the point is not the details, but the historical fact of the events confirmed by the response of the people."

That implies that something should be assumed to be factual if people act as if it's factual.

"scripture is authoritative and authentic (that is, the unredacted and unembelished scripture, not revisionist scriptures such as Lee's APB)."

That assumes that there is a particular version that qualifies as unredacted and unembellished. There are many discrepancies among the ancient manuscripts and among the translations over the centuries. Also, it was humans who decided which Gospels were official and which aren't. That was probably a defensible decision based on theological consistency, but theology is really a system of internal logic which has little if anything to do with factual accuracy. I was amused by the scandal-mongering treatment of the Gospels of Thomas and Judas, which implied that these may have been more factual than the four official Gospels. While those works have the burden of proof of showing the inaccuracy of the official Gospels, the official Gospels have the burden of proof of showing the inaccuracy of the unofficial ones.

And then there's the different interpretations that Christianity and Judaism have of the Old Testament, where Christians insist that the text foreshadows Jesus. Each side would have to show that the other interpretation is wrong.

Part 1:

MGT2,

"You get the point. That is exactly what God wants: take HIS word for it."

You don't get my point - my reference to "someone else" is not to a god at all. It's a human who claims to be a proxy or mouthpiece for a god, or who claims to have knowledge about gods. This includes the humans who penned scriptures. So religious faith means accepting the claims of humans.

"Well, at least you admit that it is possible."

It's not so remarkable that I would admit that. Intellectual responsibility means not ruling out the possibility of anything no matter how improbable. The real issue is not possibility but probability, and the amount and degree of assumptions involved in any claim of gods or miracles decreases the probability.

An additional burden of proof on any religion such as Judaism or Christianity is to show that the claims by all other religions about gods or miracles are factually incorrect. From the standpoint of my hypothetical visitor from Mars, all religions would have an equal burden of proving their claims to be accurate...

Carstonio,

In response to my statement,
"God declares that his ways are not our ways and his thoughts are not our thoughts"

You said,
While that's possible, we don't know that a god indeed said that. All we know is that someone claimed that a god said that.

Well, at least you admit that it is possible.

Because we were not present when the initial revelations were given, we rely on the historical accounts of those who were, and on the traditions of those who came before us throughout the centuries. And, as Calsailor says in his last post yesterday, concerning the passover celebrations, the point is not the details, but the historical fact of the events confirmed by the response of the people.

Yet, you have to believe that God is before you can possibly believe that he speaks to people.

If God is--you conceded the possibility--then the Judeo-Christian claim is possible.

If God is, it is possible that revelations are real and true, and scripture is authoritative and authentic (that is, the unredacted and unembelished scripture, not revisionist scriptures such as Lee's APB).

But it takes faith to receive the revelation.

Carstonio,

You responded:

"What you describe as "accepting without prior evidence" simply amounts to taking someone else's word for it."

You get the point. That is exactly what God wants: take HIS word for it.

Carstonio:

I said:

"consistent part of the understanding of the revelation of G-d's will is that it be faithful to the lived experience of that revelation."

You said:

What do you mean by "lived experience of a revelation"? And why should that be considered evidence for the factual accuracy of any particular text? A particular fact stated in a piece of text is either accurate or inaccuracy.

Let me explain with the story of Exodus: For Israel, the Covenant G-d is portrayed in the story of the Exodus. The G-d of Israel is the one who brought them out of slavery, led them out of bondage, and gave them the promised land, and made them a people. This story, central to Israel's understanding of itself is enacted each year in the festival of Pesach, or Passover, in which the story is told and retold. And the narrative is not only retold, it is told in the first person plural: G-d brought US out...

Why is this story so important? Does the path they took from Egypt to the Land of Canaan? Is it which plague appeared in Egypt or in what order? No, the central fact is that the identity of the G-d of the covenant is what is true, according to the lived faith of the community. There are issues of fact, and issues of faith. But the faith has to be true to the life of those in relationship, or it is meaningless. For some, the Holocaust was a faith breaker, because How can G-d be said to still live and care for his covenant people in the face of such horror. But for many, including Elie Wiesel as expressed in his play, Ani Ma'amin (I will believe), it was supported by the nature of the G-d of Israel. Even in the face of horror, they could endure, because they KNEW from the revelation that had been vetted in the blood of their ancestors, G-d would not abandon them ultimately.

A book of "revelation", contrary to the experience of generations is meaningless. Yes, I take scripture on faith as G-d's revelation of his Word, but that revelation is proved out daily in my own life, and in the life of the church. When I as a member of the clergy, celebrate the Eucharist, I am doing what Israel does in the Passover: Re-presenting the faith of the community as demonstrated throughout their history. When I am (or anyone is) celebrant, we are again "in the night in which he was betrayed." For 2000 years, it has been the lived experience of the Church that those words are true. And yet, we take them on faith. There's no way to PROVE them...we believe them. That's what revelation is all about.

Pr Chris

Ah, lovely. Another 'interpretation of literal words of 'God'' for political agendas to 'interpret literally' and demand everyone obey as 'God.'

On it goes.

MGT2,

"That is what faith is: accepting the truth of God without prior evidence."

No claimed fact should be beyond skeptical analysis. If I claimed that Jon Grisham's novels were actually written by Nora Roberts, I would be rightly expected to produce evidence to back that up.

"It is not subject to the rules of syllogism."

That sounds like an attempt to evade skeptical analysis, or that there is some concept of jurisdiction involved here.

"First believe God, then his Spirit will give the revelation."

That assumes that one can choose to belief in something, instead of belief arising through experience. Again, would you explain what you mean by "revelation"? The definitions I've heard and read sound as if they're describing a feeling, which seems to imply that feelings are another form of perception.

"Any claim of a revelation from God has to harmonize with the scripture because God will never give a revelation that goes against the principles of his written word."

That only works if one assumes that scriptures are the written words of gods in the first place. (If I read CalSailor's posts correctly, I'm not the only one who challenges that assumption.) Even if we grant that assumption, that brings up the question of which translations or versions represent the actual words and which ones got the words incorrectly. It also brings up the question of why one should treat Christian scriptures as more factual or more authoritative than the Jewish or Muslim ones. Your harmonization concept ignores the possibility that such gods might decide to replace the old scriptures with new ones, or revise them like an almanac or encyclopedia.

"God declares that his ways are not our ways and his thoughts are not our thoughts"

While that's possible, we don't know that a god indeed said that. All we know is that someone claimed that a god said that. Similarly, if I say I have an image of a blue elephant in my mind, you don't actually know that I have such an image, you only know that I say I have that image. What you describe as "accepting without prior evidence" simply amounts to taking someone else's word for it.

"Many waters can't quench love, neither can floods drown it." Bride of Cana

Try to edit that!

"...Thomas Jefferson, who edited his own version of the Bible, including only those passages which fit with his deist views."

This is not correct. The "Jefferson Bible" was TJ's redaction of the NT to include only what Jesus supposedly said and to exclude all commentary and interpretation.

TJ didn't cherry-pick what he included.

Carstonio

You are correct, it is a circular argument. And it is unavoidable because a Christian is asked to believe God based upon the word of God. That is what faith is: accepting the truth of God without prior evidence.

It will never make sense by trying to logically parse the biblical claims, assumptions or revelations. It is not subject to the rules of syllogism.

Again, the Judeo-Christian Bible's claim is that it has to be spiritually discerned.
First believe God, then his Spirit will give the revelation.

His word is all important. Any claim of a revelation from God has to harmonize with the scripture because God will never give a revelation that goes against the principles of his written word.

To try and understand the scriptures otherwise, is an exercise in futility. God declares that his ways are not our ways and his thoughts are not our thoughts, as the heavens are above the earth so are his thoughts above ours. He also says that his "foolishness" is greater than our wisdom.

oops...my previous post got lost in the sentence structure!

I wrote:

The Fundamentals of the Christian Faith dates from the early 20th century (1905, I think), and it advocates a literal understanding of the Bible. Unfortunately, a deep understanding of the biblical languages and culture, and an understanding that every verse is taken in its context...

it should have gone on to say:

an understanding that every verse is taken in its context is necessary to understand the bible. Single verses can be read in ways that are contradicted by the text when taken in its context. Being limited to reading a text in English, without context (each verse as its own individual piece), has led to assumptions regarding the text that are not valid.

For example. The verse: All scripture is inspirated by G-d, and is profitable for teaching...etc [2 Tim 3:16] is the basis for an assumption that the bible writers are sort of stenographers, and that they had no creative input to the text of any sort. The argument goes: Inspire means "breathe in" (the only time the word is used in the NT is here). It is a combination of theos [G-d] and pneustos [related to breathe or spirit] it is the same word used in the Greek version of Gen 1: G-d breathed upon the void...) And so the meaning is G-d breathed, or G-d inspired. and therefore the understanding is: G-d therefore breathed (somehow implanted?) the literal words of the text. There is thus a straight line from the KJV to the intent of G-d.

But, in normal usage, when we say that an artist was "inspired" in the creation of a song, painting, play, etc., do we mean to say that he or she had no creative hand in the final result? If so, why honor Beethoven, Chopin, Chagall, or anyone else? We recognize that in every other use of the word "inspire" we understand it in the sense that inspiration is 99% perspiration...in other words, of course the artist has input. Why then, do we restrict this biblical text to such a meaning as is typically done? Does this have more to do with our assumptions concerning the "holiness" of scripture, rather than the actual words?

It is questions like this that are part of the preparations to understand the text, which is called exegesis. The word means "To read out", and thus, to let it speak rather than eisogesis...to read in, and thus impose our own meaning on the text, which is a constant struggle.

This is probably way more than anyone wanted to know on this subject, but it is key to how one reads scripture, and therefore how G-d "enlightens" his people.

Pr Chris

Maryann:

I am not the only one who understands the Bible in this manner. There are two major strands in Christianity in America at present: The fundamentalist concept of every prophecy being attached to some specific historical event (of course, which event is the fulfillment of each specific text is also a matter of argument; go to the "prophecy" section of any Christian bookstore and you'll see what I mean), and the historic (some call it "mainline" Christianity that does not subscribe to this "millennialist" view. We hear so much about the Rapture and all that flows from this concept in the popular society that we tend to lose the meaning of scripture as a different sort of revelation of God.

The very "mainline" Churches that fundamentalists reject are the ones who understand the scripture in the broad sweep of its history. What I have answered above is not unique. It is taught in many seminaries of the Lutheran, Episcopal, Methodist, Presbyterian and even Roman Catholic churches. The problem is that it doesn't lend itself to fire and brimstone sorts of preaching that attempts to frighten people into following a preacher.

The Fundamentals of the Christian Faith dates from the early 20th century (1905, I think), and it advocates a literal understanding of the Bible. Unfortunately, a deep understanding of the biblical languages and culture, and an understanding that every verse is taken in its context (it is important to understand that the King James Version, which many of the followers of the Fundamentals read, has each verse as a separate line. Thus, each verse stands without context.) But read in Greek or Hebrew, the biblical text has a definite context. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and Acts as part 2 of Luke, to take just one example, were written in the context of the communities in which they arose. Not all were Hebrew, not all were of the same socioeconomic status; thus the examples vary. Copper coins in one gospel appear as silver in another, because the same coins did not make the same impact. What if you were to tell someone from Darfur not to take a thousand dollars when they set out? To them, it is a fortune. To us, well, it might be what a prudent family takes on vacation.

It is probably a weakness of the mainline churches that we haven't been aggressive enough in pushing our own understanding of scripture...but it's hard to compete with the Rapture and blood up to the horses' knees...

There are many other well trained pastors who fully and richly understand the scripture and faithfully preach it each week.

Pr Chris

God is transcendent and beyond all physical perception of man and it is through the medium of a celestial messenger that God causes His Will and Command to be revealed to His human messenger for the sake of mankind. The messenger is only an intermediary for the reception and communication of the revelation; his role is neither of an author or compiler. Muslims believe that Prophet Mohammed is neither an angel nor any other kind of supernatural being, having been born into this world of a human mother, just like any of his fellow men. What truly distinguishes him from the rest of mankind is his having been chosen by God as his messenger. In the Prophet, God saw a man in whom the passion of human nature shine bright, and in whom there was no contradiction of thought, word and deed.

God being invisible and beyond all physical perception, it was necessary to have some means of contact between man and God; otherwise it would not be possible to follow the Divine will. God is the creator of not only of our bodies but also of our faculties-which are diverse and each capable of development. It is He, Who has given us intuition, the moral conscience and means we employ to guide us in the right path. The human spirit is capable of both good and evil inspirations. It is the grace of God which enables our reason to distinguish between that which is celestial and worthy of following, and that which is diabolic and fit to be shunned.

Carstonio,
i love the relentless logic of your posts.

Cal sailor,

Where were you when my kids were in Sunday school? We finally gave up going because no one could do this kind of interpretation for them, and the bible taken literally is, well, stupid to modern ears. Whereas taken as it is meant, as poetry, metaphor, and myth, with a little history as well, it is a thing very beautiful and fascinating.

I find it ironic that these fundamentalists who are so quick to accuse religious liberals of cherry picking don't hesitate to do it themselves, when it suits their evil and hateful purposes.

MGT2,

What I'm trying to do is peel back the assumptions as far as possible and determine what is really factual.

"It is exactly to prevent those people 'hearing voices in their heads' that the scripture sets standards for those proporting to speak for God."

That's a circular argument, because the assumption of godly communication that's being challenged also applies to any scripture. Just as the burden of proof is on anyone who claims communication with gods, the burden of proof is on any text that claims to have divine authorship or inspiration. What you suggest is no different from assuming that Person A is telling the truth and Person B is not only because Person C says so.

Would you explain what you mean by a spirit of a god instructing a person? If you're not referring to verbal communication, then that idea sounds so vague as to be meaningless.

"That faith has its source in God and can only be understood by revelation by his Spirit. "

What basis is there for assering that faith has such a source? What evidence is there that the assertion is factually accurate? I stress that I'm not arguing that faith doesn't have such a source, but merely challenging the assumption that it does.

The concept of faith that you describe almost sounds like a system of internal logic that only holds together with certain initial assumptions. But the goal here is to determine what constitutes objective fact about the universe. The question of whether the god type of being exists is no different in principle from the question of whether any other thing or entity exists. Either gods exist or they don't. Having faith that they do, or having faith that they don't - both of those effectively treat questions of objective fact as though they were matters of subjective opinion.

Carstonio

Your question
"Revelation in this context means that it is really the Spirit of God instructing the man and not the man assuming that it must be God speaking to him."
Would you explain the distinction between the two? What you describe sounds like people hearing voices in their heads.

Answer;
It is exactly to prevent those people "hearing voices in their heads" that the scripture sets standards for those proporting to speak for God. Deureronomy 18, Jeremiah 23 and Ezekiel 13.

Your question:
And more importantly, why should we treat Jewish or Christian scripture as more accurate or more authoritative than any other religions' scriptures?

Answer:
It is a matter of faith which is what the Judeo-Christian religion stands on. That faith has its source in God and can only be understood by revelation by his Spirit. Otherwise, it will seem like foolishness (1 Corinthians 2:14).

Walter says:

do you really think they didn't really mean "day"? really?

I think there is a great deal of evidence in other texts that day [yom] may not always mean what we mean by "twenty four hours". (This is aside from the usage which assigned a certain number of "hours" to each day, which therefore lengthened and shortened as the seasons passed.)

If one places Gen 1:11 in its own unique unit, it is clear that this is not at all a literal history, but an explanation of etiology, of the beginnings of Israel. As such, Genesis 1 and 2 function as a single unit: Genesis 1 declares the days of creating work, and Genesis 2 discusses God's sabbath rest. Even in the great story of creation there is a balance of work and rest. The sabbath is an indispensable part of the intention of life: we do away with sabbath at our peril. (Some would say we are finding this out in America's frantic 24/7 lifestyle.)

As to whether Genesis 1 is to be taken literally or not, how does one define hours and days before the sun and moon are created? And yet, days 1-3 occur before the creation of the sun and moon, which happens on day 4. The first act of creation is the formation of the heavens and earth, with the creation of light separated from dark. But light and dark have a theological significance that is not just a temporal understanding. G-d creates the light. It is good. The rotation between light and dark is what gives meaning to time, but the importance is that light and dark are part of G-d's creation.

There is something else going on in this chapter other than a history of the world, circa 6000 years. Instead, the central affirmation of Genesis 1 and 2 is as a great hymn of praise to the creator. Like any other hymn of praise, and like poety in general, poetic understanding and literal understanding may not be exactly the same.

The bottom line is that I see Genesis as a great hymn (poetry in Hebrew is in parallelism of thought in other words, unlike English poetry that rhymes the last word). It is an affirmation that our creator is our Lord and G-d, and thus the earth and everything in it are his, including us. Whether or not it was understood as a single 24 hour day, or some otherwise undefined time has no bearing on the importance of that text, and does not change its meaning.

I refuse to have my faith held hostage to what science (which is also a gift of G-d) discovers in relation to earth's physical age. The importance to me in Genesis 1 is not whether "evening and morning day X" means a 24 hour day, but rather "in the beginning of G-d's creating, when chaos spread over the face of the void...G-d created..." G-d's creative nature is at the heart of my understanding of Genesis. For that we owe him "thanks and praise, [to]serve and obey him."

Pr Chris

CalSailor,
i understand you have to say things like that because plainly the world (universe) was not created, as we see it, in a week. do you really think the ancients were being metaphorical when they said, "So the evening and the morning were the first day."

do you really think they didn't really mean "day"? really?

Walter in Falls church:

There is a long history of interpretation that takes the literal meaning as one meaning of the text, but understands that the bible is comprised of a whole variety of texts, some of which are literal, as they are meant, and others are parable (Jonah and the whale, for example). The idea of a sort of "dictation" where people are assumed to have written as literally dictated by God is a relatively recent concept, dating formally from the Fundamentals of the Church. The bible has a great deal to teach us of God; it is THE witness of first order, but it demands that we take it as understood by the first writers and the first hearers, and treat the texts with respects for their genre.

The bible is the word of God, but as Christians, we believe that it is true insofar as it bears witness to the Word of God, who is Christ. Therefore, the question of how this particular text is to be understood is a question that has to be understood for every text, in order to honor the text, and to give it the function it was intended.

I believe that to require the text of scripture to be scientifically accurate as 21st century people understand science is to demand something for which the text was not intended, and does violence to the text.

Rabbi Hirschfeld:

When I read Genesis one and two, I tend to see it as a liturgical text. Since the Torah is read through each year, Genesis 1 and 2 is part of Rosh Hashanah. It seems to me to be the gathering of the people in responsive reading:

A: And God said, let there be X
B: and X appeared,
A: And God saw that X was good
B: Evening and morning, day Y.

Is this understanding compatible at least to part of Jewish understanding of these texts?

Pr Chris

CalSailor,
btw, i compliment you and those like you who do not take the bible literally - that's just head-in-the-sand craziness.

CalSailor, you said,
"In terms of who the G-d is whom I worship, it is immaterial whether the earth is 6000 or several billions of years old."

the "6000-yr-old-earth god" has been dead for a while now - killed by science. the reason it is "immaterial" to you is that to preserve the god of the bible, you have to make the timelines and genealogies clearly spelled out in the bible "metaphorical".

the ancients who wrote the bible, presumably with god's guidance, certainly thought the earth was a few thousand years old (and covered by a rigid dome). god could have made the bible a lot more "timeless" had he "revealed" a scientifically accurate description of the history and structure of earth and the universe.

this "version" of the bible reminds me of the "noble koran" - a wahhabi version with extra-mean, anti-everything "interpretive comments" interspersed throughout.

CalSailor,

"the community's understanding of 'thus says the Lord'"

That still involves a host of starting assumptions, and these may differ from community to community. But the goal here is to answer the question "do gods exist, and if so, how many are there?" The answer to this question would likely be community-neutral.

"if you believe that what Genesis tells us about the "who and why" of creation is more important than the "when and how", then conclusions about the "when and how", can be left to the purview of science (also part of G-d's creation)."

That's a false distinction because the "why" you describe is merely a disguised version of "how". The "why" concept only exists in this context because you're starting with the assumption that gods cause events to happen in the universe. Any postulation of gods as a cause of an event should be treated like any other postulation of cause. Nothing about the universe is outside the purview of science. (I should emphasize that concepts and ideas in the human mind are not part of the universe itself.)

"In terms of who the G-d is whom I worship, it is immaterial whether the earth is 6000 or several billions of years old."

How so? We're trying to determine what is factually accurate about the universe and about gods. Either gods exist or they don't, and the universe has a certain age. If gods are responsible for creating the universe, then they did so in a certain way.

"consistent part of the understanding of the revelation of G-d's will is that it be faithful to the lived experience of that revelation."

What do you mean by "lived experience of a revelation"? And why should that be considered evidence for the factual accuracy of any particular text? A particular fact stated in a piece of text is either accurate or inaccuracy.

Part 2

This understanding of revelation does not presuppose either the initial authority of the text, nor does it depend on the question of its historical accuracy. Instead, the authority of the texts derives from their being faithful to the community's understanding of "thus says the Lord". This, for example, is why the question of the historicity of Genesis 1 and 2 as literal physical history of the earth is of secondary interest to its witness as the revelation of who G-d is who is its creator. In short, if you believe that what Genesis tells us about the "who and why" of creation is more important than the "when and how", then conclusions about the "when and how", can be left to the purview of science (also part of G-d's creation). The conclusions regarding the latter findings have no veto over our understanding of the "who and why" of Genesis. In terms of who the G-d is whom I worship, it is immaterial whether the earth is 6000 or several billions of years old.

In the case of the Christian Bible, the gospel portrayals which are included in scripture reveal a different Christ than the one in Thomas's gospel, where he is a somewhat petulant wonder worker, for example.

In short, a consistent part of the understanding of the revelation of G-d's will is that it be faithful to the lived experience of that revelation.

Pr Chris

"That assumes that scripture is authoritative in some way, and there's no reason to start out with that assumption. It also assumes that the Gospels are historically accurate. We cannot ignore the possibility that the claim you mentioned was an invention of the Gospels' authors."

It seems to me that the idea or doctrine of "inspiration of scripture" is instructive here. Inspiration of scripture is often understood, especially in the American context, as G-d dictating to a scribe the information/revelation at hand. But there's a broader understanding of inspiration that is also part of the understanding of both Israel and the Church. And that has to do with the larger questions of "which scripture?".

In the history of both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, there are other writings that have not made it into the canonical scriptures. The Hebrew Bible was not finally deliminated until the Council of Jamnia, CE 90, and the Christian Bible does not appear in its final form until the end of the second Christian century. In both cases, the question of canonicity includes the question of which of the texts that claim to be scripture have met the lived experience of the people over generations. The Torah has at least elements nearly 2000 years older than Jamnia; the Christian Bible, while written in a relatively brief period of time did not come until its final form for generations. Why is it that, say, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are considered canonical and the gospels of Thomas, Ruth and Mary are not? The answer for both communities is that the included texts have met the lived experience of the community. The others have failed to.

(continued, below)

Pr Chris

Hello Rabbi:

I hope you are well. I've enjoyed your recent essays even though I don't come to this site much since I have been banned. Overall, my life is good although I continue to miss my late wife. My regards to you and your family.

"Revelation in this context means that it is really the Spirit of God instructing the man and not the man assuming that it must be God speaking to him."

Would you explain the distinction between the two? What you describe sounds like people hearing voices in their heads.

"gave as one proof of His claim the fact that he can tell what is going to happen before it does...he is telling them the events before they happened so that when they do occur, the disciples would believe"

That assumes that scripture is authoritative in some way, and there's no reason to start out with that assumption. It also assumes that the Gospels are historically accurate. We cannot ignore the possibility that the claim you mentioned was an invention of the Gospels' authors.

"Bear in mind also, that those claiming a revelation from God, cannot be wrong in any of those claims or predictions. "

How so?

"This is a clear standard set by the scriptures so that we can judge whether something is merely the product of man or whether it is divinely inspired."

What standard would that be? And more importantly, why should we treat Jewish or Christian scripture as more accurate or more authoritative than any other religions' scriptures? Imagine you've just arrived from Mars and know nothing about Earth religions, and each religion is providing evidence to you for its claims about beings that cannot be perceived with the senses.

Two scripture come to mind with regard to this 2 TIMOTHY 3:3,4 and REVELATION 22:18,19 enough said.

Carstonio,

Revelation in this context means that it is really the Spirit of God instructing the man and not the man assuming that it must be God speaking to him. Yes, it is personal, but it is also subject to inner candor.

How do we prove this? In the Book of Isaiah, God told Israel that there is no other god besides Him, and gave as one proof of His claim the fact that he can tell what is going to happen before it does. Jesus hinted at the same claim to his disciples before his crucifixion by saying that he is telling them the events before they happened so that when they do occur, the disciples would believe.( I am sorry, but a Bible is not handy at this moment, so I cannot give you the exact verses)

Bear in mind also, that those claiming a revelation from God, cannot be wrong in any of those claims or predictions. This is a clear standard set by the scriptures so that we can judge whether something is merely the product of man or whether it is divinely inspired. However, and to some extent, unfortunately, it cannot be judged in an instant, but over time.

"The Bible teaches us that the natural man cannot understand the things of God unless it is spiritually discerned, that is, unless it is revealed to him by the Spirit of God."

What does "revelation" mean in this context? That sounds like a claim of extrasensory perception, or perhaps the claim by many philosophies that cogitation itself is a form of perception. But the issue here is evidence and credibility. Anyone can claim to have experienced a revelation - the only evidence is the person's word for it. That is an issue because people use claims of revelations as the basis for claims of absolute truth or absolute authority. To Hirschfield's credit, his reply post sounds like he's treating revelation as a personal thing and not a claim of universal truth or authority, although I'm not sure if that's his intention.

Dear Rabbi Brad

Thanks for your amswer.

You said:
"Therefore, I believe that the life context of those who recieved the initial revelations, played a role in how and what God chose to share. How could it be otherwise?" I could not agree with you more.

For your first question: I think it is important to distinguish, especially in these times, the difference between the wisdom of man as it applies to life and the wisdom of God in the same respect.

Man's wisdom, and therefore his interpretation of what is important for life, is limited to his temporal existence which is the basis of his reference. The Bible teaches us that the natural man cannot understand the things of God unless it is spiritually discerned, that is, unless it is revealed to him by the Spirit of God. So, man-made, for me, is that which is conceived by man without the instruction of God through his Spirit. Therefore, if a man was to "write" a bible and claim that God had nothing to do with it, it becomes nothing more than a literary work without a divine impulse. It is fraught with errors and slanted toward a narrow viewpoint, thus rendering it inadequate as a trustworthy guide for life here and hereafter.

MGT2,

Hirschfield here. In answer to to your question, I do believe in revelation. I even believe in the possibility of multiple revelations to multiple communities. So it's not even that I can only affirm the revealed status of those texts which make a claim on my personal life.

I also want to ask you, and anyone else reading, two questions: first, why do you assume that "man made" and "God made" are mutually exclusive categories? Second,I believe in a loving, just and merciful God. Therefore, I believe that the life context of those who recieved the initial revelations, played a role in how and what God chose to share. How could it be otherwise?

"Lee continues the tradition which created a Hebrew Bible for beaten down slaves leaving Egypt, and a New Testament for those in desperate need of a Messiah and the new world order he was to establish."

This statement from Hirschfield is more troubling to me than Lee's bible ( I do not agree with Lee's point of view even while I do not see his work as writing a "new" bible).

Hirschfield seems to be suggesting that the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament Bible are merely man-made devices produced to pacify the downtrodden. He seems to deny any divine impetus for the works, or that they could ever be the actual words of God. Am I correct in this assumption?

The American Patriot's Bible is not a revision of the Bible, nor is it a "cherry-picked" edit of the Bible. The APB offers the complete text of the New King James Version. Why the NKJV? The APB is released by Thomas Nelson Publishing who has several different study Bibles which utilize this translation. It seems to be their translation of choice. They do have a Charles Stanley Study Bible which utilizes the New American Standard Version, so I don't believe that Thomas Nelson Publishing or Pastor Richard Lee will necessarily lay claim to the NKJV/KJV being the only authoritative version of the Bible.

Also, while the APB has interspersed U.S. historical essays, biographical notes, anecdotes and quotations and, at times, dovetails the U.S. events with biblical events it does not insist that the opinions or lessons that are made are the only authoritative way to interpret either U.S. history or the Bible. Nor is their a discernable political ideology. Don't history classes in schools attempt to do this same thing? I've heard the Crimean War was compared to the Vietnam War, and Afghanistan in the '80s had been described as the U.S.S.R.'s Vietnam, as well.

There is a lot of speculation and inference that the APB is meant to provoke rage & violence, yet I return to the quote from the essay "A Call to Action" (contained in the APB) that speaks how "non-violent moral, social & political change" is imbedded in the U.S. tradition. Where do the editors of the APB call for violent action? Where is the proof from the text?

I'm not suggesting that anyone has to buy the APB, but at least go to your local library, go to a local bookstore and browse through it, check out a site like Amazon.com that has on-line preview sections of books and at least look at the source text.

Before you take a second-hand critical source as accurate, be sure to check out the primary text and also take into consideration the author's intent, because as a wise man once said, "intent is prior to content."

Sincerely,

Isaiah68

"these people think that God is a white, conservative American"

He sure looks like it in the pitchers. Altho that beard thing is a bit questionable. I think the long hair and beard were just the imagination of some hippie theologians.

Jesus had a good American crew cut.

Soooo... there is yet another revision of the Bible. We have to many already!

My question for the Fundamentalists, who believe that the Bible is written exactly as God said things is: with so many different versions and translations of the Bible, which one is correct? Which on is as God said it? God spoke English to the ancient Israelites? English didn't even exist at this time.

This new Bible is a beautiful example of the hypocrisy; Bible-thumpers' cherry-picking and perversion of these texts-- a practice that has occurred throughout history, ever since the Bible was first written. To take it literally, and believe it as absolute is ludicrous.

How convenient. Now the Huckabee have a pre-cherry-picked collection of scriptures to justify their intolerance, racism, exclusion and hatred without having to deal with such annoyances as Leviticus 20:10 for adulterous neocon politicians and pastors or verse 19:33 for immigrants. Anytime anyone combines the word "patriot" and "bible" look out for the charlatans.

True American Christians should be alarmed at this further attempt to hijack Christ's name for a extremist political agenda. But, in their milk toast tradition, they will let it pass and more will come to embrace it.

Let me clarify some of my concerns:

The AMERICAN PATRIOT BIBLE (APB) is a text of the King James Bible (a text preferred by mostly conservative protestant religious groups. More mainline denominations prefer something like the New Revised Standard Version as one that is more accurate to the text and one that is inclusive in its English. Roman Catholics also read the NRSV, but not the KJV either.) The APB contains essays on American history. The essays are from a conservative point of view. They are NOT gathered into a group at the beginning or end of the bible, but are placed in various places in the text: in the Hebrew Prophets, in Acts, etc., The implication is that THIS reading of American History is the correct inheritance of the prophets of Israel or the Early Church.

The APB is a code that says two things:
1. All BIBLE Believing American Patriots [read: Not Jews, not Roman Catholics not Mainline Protestants] use the KING JAMES VERSION. (The APB is not published in multiple versions of the Bible)

2. The ONLY understanding of American history is the one in the APB.

The conclusion: If you are a true Bible Believing Christian American Patriot, you will read THIS version of the Bible and reach THIS understanding of American history. Otherwise, you are neither a good American Patriot, nor a good [evangelical] Christian.

And yet, there are many American patriots who are faithful Christians who read another version of the bible, and who understand our history in a different perspective. They are not less patriotic than the ones who buy this book.

This is why the Rabbi believes that this book fuels anger. At the least, it pits one type of Christian Americans against other Americans, and increases the divisions among Americans.

Pr Chris

Lee "...continues the tradition which created a New Testament for those in desperate need of a Messiah and the new world order he was to establish," one has to be aware that this type of argument or commentary reeks of hatred, bias and outright disrespect for another's religion.
Posted by: dotherightthing

Why, exactly, is this hateful? I'm not trying to be snarky, I just don't see it. It doesn't defer to Pastor Lee's beliefs, and the author clearly doesn't share them, but I don't see any hate or disrespect, just disagreement and concern for the actions Pastor Lee's work might bring about.

Do you find simple disagreement to be hateful? If not, could you give me an example of what you would regard as respectful disagreement? I have been a bit shocked at the rudeness, name calling and general nasty attitude some posters present, and perhaps discussing what we would like to see in those who don't share our beliefs could raise the tone.

"So, because Christians are the majority, they then should justifiably be bashed, attacked and called racists for writing a Christian-based book?"

Lee is not being bashed because he's in the white Christian majority. He's being bashed because he's implying that only white Christians are full Americans. Gimpi's reply says it best.

...Hirschfield is right to condemn the phrase "decent, hardworking core of America," because such language has been used as racial code since the 1960s.
Posted by: Carstonio

Thank you, Carstonio. This sums up very well why this whole project makes me uncomfortable. Are non-Christians not "decent, hardworking, or American?" What about Christians who reject the politics of Pastor Lee? Are they "indecent?" "Un-American?"

It's like the whole "real American" thing during the recent election. I think lots of us are a bit tired of being regarded by some people of a more conservative political or religious stripe as "fake Americans."

America has no national religion, no national political party, no required viewpoint as a litmus test for citizenship. Do we really need MORE ways do create division? It that the conservative view of Christianity?

Come on, Christian conservatives, help me out here. Answer me. Is that divisiveness and hostility really what you want? And if not,can you reassure me? I don't want to dominate you, force you to renounce your views, or adopt practices you find uncomfortable. I just want the same courtesy in return. That's why I find these calls to action unnerving.

It is troubling to learn that some view Hirschfield's scathing review of Lee's Patriot Bible as simply pointing out a so called, "tyranny of the majority." There is no "tyranny" here and to assume that this is the editor's motive is extremely short sighted. Lee simply wrote the Patriot Bible from his Christian point of view, and he has that right. So, because Christians are the majority, they then should justifiably be bashed, attacked and called racists for writing a Christian-based book? How is this allowing freedom of religion?

When the writer, Hirschfield, states that Lee "...continues the tradition which created a New Testament for those in desperate need of a Messiah and the new world order he was to establish," one has to be aware that this type of argument or commentary reeks of hatred, bias and outright disrespect for another's religion.

"It seems puzzling that Christians must tolerate other religious and non-religious points of view, but writers, like Hirschfield, won't do the same."

While I can't speak for Hirschfield, the issue here is about preventing tyranny of the majority. The idea that "our nation sprung from Judeo-Christian ethics" is largely Manifest Destiny revisionism that ignores the influence of Enlightenment-era thinkers on the Founding Fathers. The modern religious right uses that idea as a club to bash non-Christian religions and their adherents as insufficiently patriotic. This isn't about intolerance of any particular religion, this is about intolerance of any claim that some religions are more American than others. Such claims undermine the principle of religious freedom. And Hirschfield is right to condemn the phrase "decent, hardworking core of America," because such language has been used as racial code since the 1960s.

Hirschfield incorrectly notes the editor's intent of writing The New Patriot's Bible going so far as to exhibit a little sacred rage, himself.

He notes that Lee "...continues the tradition which created a New Testament for those in desperate need of a Messiah and the new world order he was to establish." Again, Hirshfield exhibits more sacred rage and his comments smack of hatred.

Hirschfield also notes, "Patriot Bible "nurtures people's sense of rage and disconnection, their feelings of being victimized and under attack."" This is another interesting comment that is completely his own biased viewpoint. In the Patriot Bible, Lee writes (and acknowledges!) about the role of Christianity in our nation's history and how our nation sprung from Judeo-Christian ethics.

The text is obviously meant for Christians. It seems puzzling that Christians must tolerate other religious and non-religious points of view, but writers, like Hirschfield, won't do the same. Why Hirschfield has been given such a public platform on Washington Post to belittle, diminish and bash another's religion, is beyond me -and is a little frightening.

Both "privileging the reader's word over God's" and "subverted scripture" reflect the baseless assumption that scripture was dictated or inspired by gods. There's no evidence for either.

I see nothing wrong in principle with people "cherry-picking" scripture for their own purposes, as long as they make it clear what they're doing. I would oppose someone editing, say, the Episcopal or Catholic Bible and proclaiming his version to be the "official" one for the denomination, because that's simple misrepresentation. However, I see that as not much different than a religion or denomination claiming that its official version came from gods. A religion's or denomination's official scripture is whatever the group or its leadership says it is.

The difference between the Jefferson Bible and the Patriot Bible is one of motive. Jefferson's goal was to examine the moral teachings of Jesus on their own merits, leaving questions of godhood aside.

Hirschfield correctly notes that the Patriot Bible "nurtures people's sense of rage and disconnection, their feelings of being victimized and under attack." I had hoped that he would dissect that phenomenon, such as the resurgence of fundamentalism in the 1980s as a reaction to the civil rights and women's rights movement, or even the horrid commingling of religion and racism in the Manifest Destiny concept.

The release to the market of the American Patriot Bible is a business enterprise. As such the customers in the market should expect to find the content suggested by the name of the product, that is, things that can be taken as American patriotism.

I haven’t take a look to this product to see how much patriotic is the book, nor I intend to buy one to do it. But I hope that at least this product comes to the readers cleansed of not patriotic things like people buying and selling other people and the authors not condemning it, stoning adulterers, ordering to do things known to divide a country, establish rules so rigid and full of anachronisms that inspire Americans to commit terrorist acts like bombing and shooting fellow Americans doctors that perform abortion.

Peace and best wishes to all.

Rabbi Hirschfield,

You make some outstanding claims concerning the American Patriot Bible and Pastor Lee and his fellow editors. Many of which make me question whether you've actually looked at a copy of book.

You claim that Pastor Lee and his fellow editors are editing The Bible in the way Thomas Jefferson edited his Bible, in that they are omitting passages or somehow manipulating them for their own ends. However, the APB contains the entire text of the New King James Version. The editing process Pastor Lee, et al, used seems to be the extra content such as articles on the history of the nation as well as U.S. historical figures. Pastor Lee states that he and the others have gone to great lengths to check the authenticity of the information relayed. At no place do they claim to put their own opinions ahead of the text of the Bible.

You state that they seem to wish to paint a few of U.S. History that can only be embraced by WASP males yet there are references to Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks, Henry Highland Garnet, George Washington Carver, Frederick Douglass, Martin Luther King, Jr., the Tuskegee Institute, and President Obama as well as the Narragansett Native Americans and the Women's Suffrage Movement.

Pastor Lee does not claim to have the "only true form of patriotism" or a "narrow view of politics". As to propagating fear & rage, how do you explain the quote from his "Call to Action" essay in which he states that imbedded in our nation is the call to "NONVIOLENT (emphasis mine) moral, social & political change."

You, of course, are allowed to disagree with the premise and the marketing of an American Patriot's Bible. If you are going to do so, I would hope you would criticize it based on the actual volume itself, not on misperceptions, falsehoods or your own surmising of the editors' motives.

Thank you for your time & consideration.

Sincerely,
Isaiah68

Hmmm, many contemporary OT and NT exegetes after exhaustive study of the documents/archeology supporting the bible passages have concluded that the bible is highly embellished and mythicized to the point that anyone with a pastor or evangelical in his/her name can add to the fiction and semi-fiction. And of course, there are big profit margins in books.

And if I were the descendents (all of them) of Thomas Jefferson, I would sue Pastor Lee for plagiarism.

Maybe the bookstores should shelve it in with the Fantasy Fiction books. Stick that "Left Behind" nonsense there also. I will bet Tolkein is a much better writer also. And at least he never claimed to have the inside track with Jesus.

I find this to be both strange and disturbing. What I have heard from conservative Christians in the past is that in general they reject what they feel is the "cherry picking" of the Bible to bring it more in line with the modern world. The idea seems to be that the Bible either represents an entire truth for all time, or none of it can be true at all.

They seem to feel that all that stuff about condemning some sexual practices, attacking other religions, subordinating women and so on must be taken at face value (with no historical content conidered and no notice of the stuff they have chosen to discard, such as dietary laws). In other words, You have to take Deuteronomy if you want to have the Sermon on the Mount. So now they want to edit out the Sermon on the Mount part? Where's the consistency there?

Help me out here, guys. Any Christian conservatives out there who have seen this book, is this OK? I haven't seen this version (Gospel 2.0?) yet, so I can't really judge it, but if the Episcopalians can't revise their rules as their understanding of the world changes, why can a conservative group cut-and-paste to make a more angry and fearful Bible? Is it only OK to make things more narrow, judgmental and frightening?

And, an aside, what's up with the conservative devotion to King James? A little historical research shows it was both a poor and political translation. There really are several better out there. If you want to get to the truth of your beliefs, (and you don't read Aramaic, Latin or Greek) wouldn't you want the best translation possible? I read some guy representing that the errors in the King James version were God stepping in, and deliberatly "fixing" problems with earlier interpertations. Do some conservative Christians believe that? Or is it just a "conservative" affection for a familiar format? Just a side-note. I'm curious.

I'm guessing that a lot of the NT has been heavily redacted. You know, that part about "loving your enemies", and those namby-pamby Beatitudes.

Just a little laugh from your friendly neighborhood indecent, lazy Pagan-American.

Sounds like people are segmenting the Bible market.

Rabbi:

I fully agree with you. When I found it on my shelving cart in the bookstore where I work, I almost wanted to throw up. I can't believe it is published by Thomas Nelson, a (heretofor) major Bible publisher. And yet, this version of the Bible is an attempt to coopt the Bible for the right wing fundamentalist.

I wrote to the publisher, and, to date, have no response. Evidently, they are either fully converted to the idea that only right wing political types can be Christians, and the only Bible which Christians can claim is the King James Bible (which obviously excludes Roman Catholics, who do not read the KJV), which is a beautiful translation, based on a poor text.

What was the publisher thinking of, to risk the reputation of Thomas Nelson, by identifying with one segment of the society, and the rejection of millions of committed Jews and Christians, who object to the identification of Scripture with a particular political ideology.

Pr Chris