You probably think this post is going to be about gun control. Well, you’re wrong.
I don’t know when he said it, but Piers Morgan said that “Both the Bible and the Constitution were well intentioned but they are basically, inherently flawed. Hence the need to amend it.” Morgan was referring to amending the Bible to have a more favorable view of homosexuality.
I know some people are outraged by the mere mention of amending the Bible, to those people I ask, “What version of the Bible to do you think you’re reading?” Some people have probably never wondered why the current version of the Bible is called the King James Version. The simple answer is because King James commissioned it and cherry picked the stories that he wanted to be included. That means that some biblical stories were edited out of the Bible. There were other versions of the Bible before King James, and there have been a few versions after, but most Americans are familiar with the King James Version.
Another aspect of concern for people, who don’t want to amend the Bible, should be the fact that the original text of the Bible was not in English. Scholars translated the stories from Hebrew, Greek and Latin. Even today, some sentiments are lost in translation. I find it amusing that people think the Bible is immune from that. I again point to the King James Version. The King James Version was the third English translation to be approved by the English Church. That means there were two previously approved versions and who knows how many other unapproved translations. If the Bible was immune from being poorly translated, why did the English Church keep translating it?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not anti-Bible. I’m a Christian. I do believe in God, but I refuse to put all of my faith in God’s words as translated by man because I know that man is flawed and by extension, any work done at the hands of man will inherit his flaws.
Okay, now back on topic, Reverend Pearson of San Francisco’s Holy Innocents Church has translated the Bible in to more gay friendly words. He argues that “homosexuality was first overtly mentioned in the Bible in 1946 in the Revised Standard Version” and that “there is no mention of or reference to homosexuality in any Bible prior to this—only interpretations have been made.” I haven’t done my research on this one, so I can neither support nor deny his claims, but I can point out that the Revised Standard Version is yet another revision to the Bible. Sometimes just changing one word can alter the meaning of an entire phrase. Imagine what has happened to the Bible after all of the “revisions” that it has undergone.
Now I’d like to blame my ninth grade history teacher for my critical opinion of the Bible. He had our class examine the leading religious texts and the regions that the texts emerged from. He had us evaluate the history of those regions and compare it to the various texts. People read Leviticus 18:22 “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination” and go for the literal idea and argue that homosexuality is a sin because it is an abomination. The first thing I want to point out is that “abomination” is an English word that was used to translate Hebrew words that had varying degrees. Abomination does not reflect degrees. The second thing I want to point out is that what people often fail to consider is the time when this verse was allegedly written. During that time, building a strong population was vital for survival. Homosexual relationships did not result in children and thus, they were discouraged. Homosexual relationships were viewed as morally wrong because they put self above the need of the people. Given the current population of the world, I think it’s safe to say that we no longer need a provision to ensure that our civilizations continue. American Christians and all Christians actually, can relax. Job well done! Now it’s time to reevaluate things.
It’s also time for me come down off my soapbox. I’m done. Hopefully the sentiment of this post doesn’t get lost in translation.