There IS No Bible

There IS No Bible

APRIL 2005

I am always asking, “Which God?” No one yet has come forth with an answer to that question other than, “I just know it in my heart.” Well, all True Believers just know it in their hearts, and they all contradict each other in their beliefs. So they can’t all be right, can they? Um, no. But instead of beating that drum any more, for the moment I’d like to ask a similar but different question: “Which Bible?”

People are asked to place their hands on a Bible as they swear to tell the truth (I’d love to be a witness and ask to be sworn in on the Egyptian Book of the Dead) or uphold certain offices or defend the Constitution. It happens so often we look past it for the most part. We accept it. Part of the background. But just what exactly are they putting their hands on? “The Bible” we are told. So I ask again, “Which Bible?” For those of you who think this is being nit-picky, I must point out that the question is an important one when looking at religions. Everyone can (vaguely) separate the Koran from “the” Bible; but I wonder how many people realize that there are a minimum of ten translations of “the” Bible plus The Book of Mormon plus Mary Baker Eddy’s Science and Health, with Key to the Scriptures. These books are so dissimilar as to make them appear to represent completely different religions. And they do. There is no reconciling them.

Raised as a sturdy Protestant, a Missouri Synod Lutheran, I “knew” that the Catholic Bible was nothing short of idolatry. All those “extra” books were cockamamie, papist clap-trap. I raise this specter of prejudice because when it comes to defining “the” Bible, prejudice is so rampant that I can’t believe the divergent views get such a pass on it.

“As Catholics were responsible for writing the New Testament (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit), the Catholic Church doesn’t ‘interpret’ the Bible. We explain it. Protestants can only ‘interpret’, because they are not the author (guided by the Holy Spirit), and therefore, can only guess at the possible meaning of a chapter, passage or phrase, just as anyone can only guess at any author’s intentions in any other book. As the author, the Catholic Church is the only proper authority to consult in matters pertaining to the Bible.”

So says:

http://www.cathtruth.com/catholicbible

Well, so much for the Protestants. But I think it would only be fair for them to include, “As the creator, the Catholic Church is the only proper authority to consult in matters pertaining to the Inquisitions conducted during the 13th through the 16th centuries.” And maybe they could include the Albigensian Crusade of 1209, when some Christians in southern France (Beziers) chose to believe in some “heretical” things which infuriated the Pope. Pope Innocent III (what an ironic name!) ordered his troops to go kill the heretics. When the troops got there they said they could not tell the difference between the “true” believers and the “heretics” and asked what they should do. The Pope’s now famous response, was, “Kill them all, for God knows His own.” How’s that for Christian love?

Anyway, the Catholic site mentioned above goes on to say, “In conclusion, let us point out that since they follow the synagogue in their rejection of the additional books of the Old Testament, the Protestants should in all logic follow it in its rejection of the New Testament and of Christ Himself.” What the hell does “follow the synagogue” mean? That isn’t quite saying Jews with a sneer on your face, but it comes close. A synagogue is a place of worship, not a religious doctrine. So do I take that to mean then that Protestants are following that building down on East 48th Street? What exactly are these Catholics trying to say?

Even though in 1959 Pope John XXIII ordered that the reference to “perfidious Jews” be removed from the Good Friday liturgy, it wasn’t official until Vatican II. Then, on October 28, 1965, the “Guidelines On Religious Relations With The Jews (N.4)” was adopted and the offensive prayer was officially eliminated. The Roman Catholic liturgical prayer called upon God to convert the “perfidious Jews,” and “that our Lord may take the veil from their hearts, and that they may also acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ.” That way they’d be protected from the “perfidious” Jew, you see? Get those Jews off this planet! Why does that sound familiar? Oh, yes. The Nazis.

In a similar divisive gesture, Jewish men (until recently the only gender allowed to worship at services) thanked God that they were not born women. By the way, my most harsh critics are Jewish males over the age of 50, with half claiming to be “secular” Jews. Gee, I wonder why that should be. Could it be because their early training is too hard to slough off? They were taught that not only are they the Chosen People, but males are the Chosen Sex. Heady stuff. But I digress. Which is easy to do when discussing the multitudinous prejudices in religions.

Anyway, there is no getting around this biblical bedlam without acknowledging that the various “Bibles” fiercely observed by the various religions all disagree, unequivocally, with each other. You must choose one (or none of course) but you may not try to pull them all together under the safety of some all-embracing, nondenominational umbrella, while sweeping the numerous (and their number is legion!) differences under the rug. Uh-uh. No way. The differences are too significant and too mutually exclusive for that. You gotta choose.

But even if you choose “the” Protestant Bible you’re going to have to choose again. Do you want the King James Version (published in the early 17th century) or the American Standard Version (published in 1901) or the Revised Standard Version (published in 1946) or The Jerusalem Bible (1965) or The NEW Jerusalem Bible (1985) or……..well, enough. Two examples of differences in the translations:

Luke 2:14—”Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men with whom he is pleased!” (Revised Standard Version)

Luke 2:14— “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.” (King James Version)

Unimportant? No, because they say very different things. The two verses are not synonymous, which is the least you would expect for divinely inspired words. There should be only one way to translate the words if in fact God was guiding the process. Obviously no one’s on translation duty. And this brings up another important, but totally overlooked problem. Why should any translations be needed? Why couldn’t an all-powerful God provide his Eternally Important Words in every language ever known on earth? Well, of course he could have; so why didn’t he? Why allow mere mortals to slog over the effort and foul up so many times? Just food for thought. Back to the translations:

Isaiah 7:14—”Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” (Revised Standard Version)

Isaiah 7:14—”Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” (King James Version)

Unimportant? Hardly! Here we have the difference between a virgin birth and an ordinary human birth. Doctrinally speaking, this is a doozy of a difference. A young woman is not necessarily a virgin and vice versa. It’s the difference between a virgin birth, which is a “miracle” and an ordinary pregnancy, which is…ordinary. It’s done all the time. Billions and billions have been through it. So, which is the “correct” translation?

Okay, time’s up. And the winner is……….young woman. The original Hebrew means “young woman” but the ardent Christians of the 1600s were determined to make this verse prophetic. They wanted to make the Old Testament predict the birth of Jesus in the New Testament, and this is one of the reaches they were forced to make. But even with the wrong translation of “young woman,” it fails miserably as a “prophecy.” The verse is part of a long story about a king named Ahaz who is worried about an upcoming attack by two other kings. God tells him not to worry and offers a sign, which is about a young woman giving birth to a child that she will call Immanuel. And God promises that by the time that child knows right from wrong those two other kings will be history. No threat. All gone. What does this have to do with someone named Jesus to be born 700 years later? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. But desperate people grasp at desperate straws. And why will no one address the fact that Mary did not name her son Immanuel? The names Jesus and Immanuel have nothing to do with each other. Nothing.

Meanwhile, back to our Catholic site. The Catholics are no more haughty than anyone else in dismissing other religions, although the particular site mentioned above does seem to go out of its way to blast the Protestants:

“The Protestant Old Testament omits several entire books and parts of two other books. To explain how this came about, it is necessary that we go back to the ancient Jewish Scriptures. The Hebrew Bible contained only the Old Testament and from its Old Testament it excluded seven entire books—namely, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, First and Second Maccabees—and parts of Esther (10:14 to 16:14) and Daniel (3:24—90; 13; 14).” So the Protestants really screwed up on that one, huh? Still following the “synagogue” are they?

They point is they can’t both be right, the Catholics and the Protestants. Either Baruch, for example, is a legitimate part of the “inspired” Bible or it is not. (I of course don’t believe any of this stuff, but I am discussing it as if I were a Protestant or a Catholic.) So which is it? Did God, through the Holy Spirit, inspire the Book of Baruch? (And all the others.) It is a yes or no question. There is no room for a middle position. So which is it? Yes or no? I’d like an answer, please. Will someone out there please write me and give me the definitive answer to this simple question?

Likewise, the Catholic site chastises (and chastises and chastises) the Protestants for their refusal to accept the “correct” books, or the Pope, into their hearts. They scold, “The Second Book of Maccabees, for example, contains the doctrine of purgatory, of prayers and sacrifices for the dead.” Again, which is it? Is there a purgatory or not? Yes or no? There is no room for a middle position. Is it proper to pray for the dead? Yes or no?

Then of course we have the Jewish Bible. Now we have chaos. Judaism does not recognize the New Testament at all and does not consider Jesus to be the Messiah. They recognize only the first five books of the Bible—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy—which is called the Pentateuch, and some of the Prophets such as Joshua, Solomon and so on. But Jesus? No. So now we have three major religions, all of them totally different from each other, but all of them referring to the “same” Bible. It cannot be the same Bible.

Have you ever seen those high-fructose photos of the Pope embracing a rabbi? Or a dais filled with different church leaders, all smiling as if in harmony? Larry King had just such a group on his show about a year ago and it was enough to make you toss your cookies. His guests included a fundamentalist Christian Protestant minister, a Catholic priest, a rabbi, a Muslim imam and a Hindu, whose title escapes me. (Sorry.) They were all males. (Why am I not stunned?) The only reasonable, kind person on that panel was the Hindu. He wasn’t allowed to talk much, as the Protestant fundie hogged the conversation as much as possible. But what little the Hindu said was compassionate and just plain nice. King got the fundie to admit that he believed that unless everyone on the panel accepted Christ, then hell awaited them. But King never took it further than that. He ducked for cover and started talking about world peace or whatever.

Why did King not ask to logical question: Which one of your religions is the correct religion? (It couldn’t be because he is a male Jew over 50, could it?) But no one ever asks the all-important which questions. Why is that? The very few times I’ve ever seen anyone in the mainstream media pose that divisive but important question, the people being asked the question immediately close ranks and say they are worshipping the same God, but worshipping differently. Bullsquash. If A worships a God who sent Jesus as Savior and B worships a God who did not, then they are worshipping two different Gods. It cannot be otherwise.

So, just like you must choose a God, you must choose a Bible. And here are your Judeo-Christian choices:

1. The Jewish Pentateuch.

2. The Catholic Bible.

3. The Protestant Bible, any of many translations.

4. One of the many Protestant Bibles with the Book of Mormon thrown in.

5. One of the many Protestant Bibles with Science and Health, with Key to the Scriptures thrown in.

I repeat, which Bible?

Back to Main Page Back to Previous Columns