Classical Spin

Rantings and ravings on politics, philosophy, and things that fall into the ether of 'none of the above'.

Friday, August 12, 2005

And God said, "Let there be translators!"

And so there were, and God saw that it was not good; it created mass confusion and distress amongst the people [1 Cor. 15:33].

Okay, fine. Chapter 5, verse 33 of 1 Corinthians is actually "Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners." Which, actually, since I just picked that at total random, kind of creeps me out a bit.

In the Continuing Saga of "Religion Creeps Me Out, Yet I Must Read The Bible", I've taken the plunge. I've purchased the bible. Two, actually, or maybe one and a half. I took myself out to Barnes and Noble today and proceeded to stare in something resembling awe at the entire wall lined with "Religious/Christian" books, and then the two shelving units of "Bible", one of "Judaica", and ignored the others. Only Judeo-Christian thought for me!

There are, as I mentioned an entry or two ago, quite a lot of versions of the bible. There is the Tanakh, the traditional Jewish translation. Then there's the King James Version, the New King James (which is apparently quite different), the New International Version, and the New American Bible, which I gather is the currently-accepted Roman Catholic text, but I gather that there's a previous version of the Roman Catholic Bible, as the New American version was written sometime in the 1900's, and the Roman Catholic church has been around for a bit longer. I know that because this website, written by the Vatican, told me so, but I can't be bothered to get past the first paragraph.

Plus, there are other various things. There was a translation which said it was the Dead Sea Scrolls transalation, but every other word was bracketed, because while, yeah, the Scrolls were preserved really well, they were also a couple thousand years old.

Anyway, after much contemplation and a bit of sticker shock (bibles are expensive!), I figured a few things out. I could get the Tanakh, which is by definition Jewish, and most editions are Hebrew/English, which means that they open the wrong way, which would drive me completely insane within about thrity seconds. Also, the one edition of that at the store I liked was $45.00. I could get a "study bible", which is weighed down by dozens and dozens of footnotes, study questions, and things like, "Eighty Ways to Feel Jesus' Love At Night In Bed." (Note: the preceding blasphemy was entirely mine. I did not see that exact quote anywhere.) Also, they're expensive. Or, I could go with the classic: leather or clothbound, plain dark cover, "Holy Bible". I was really hesitant, because, while I'm all for great books, I'm not sure I'm ready for my seminar reading to be holy. Then I finally realized my problem:

I'm not going to find any version of the bible which is devoid of religious links. It will be Jewish or Christian. There is no 'athiest' or 'agnostic' bible, nor is there a 'not-holy, just-purely-academic' bible.

I did draw the line at buying one which advertized on the spine: "With Jesus' words highlighted in red." But I am now the owner of one sturdy, non-celebratory copy of the Tanakh-ish version of the first five books of the bible, and one "Holy Bible", King James Version.

Also, I swear I just saw a pig fly past my window.

If I still feel like I need to balance out the grand scheme of things more tonight? I'm going to put into writing my thoughts about zombies, vampires, and Jesus. Chock full of blasphemy, and probably an embarrassment to both my Catholic and Jewish relatives!

3 Comments:

At 21:52, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Being an atheist is philosophically untenable. And reading the Bible will be good for you. It is by no means any type of condonement of crazy so-called "fundamentalists". They're no better than the "Muslim" terrorists. Any true fundamentalist MUST be a pacifist. The Bible repeatedly condemns these "fundamentalists", in fact. And, by the way, you will regret not buying the version with Jesus' words in red. It would have helped.

 
At 10:23, Blogger NinjaGeek said...

How is being an atheist philosophically untenable? If I say that I don't believe in any manner of deity, how can someone say that I do? It's a personal opinion, nothing more.

 
At 19:55, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Because it's exactly the same as saying the Bible or the Torah or the Kor'an is the literal word of God. Only Sith speak in absolutes. By saying definitively that "There is absolutely no god/God/Allah/Vishnu/Yaweh/Bob/Oversoul/whatever, you have put yourself in the same position as someone who says "God told me _______ on the way home form the bar last night". The best you can do is agnosticism. But that's just refusal to believe....
Besides, if there is no god/God/etc then where did we all come from? What are the chances of the universe exploding from a little golfball into a massive evergrowing chaotic mess, but somehow creating the exact conditions to support life? At some point way above all of our heads (and Falwell's, Sanatorum's, the wackos in Kansas and the intelligent design folks, science and faith meet. To me, it seems untenable to even be agnostic. It's like setting down on a stool, turning off the light, and then saying "well, I can't see the stool, but I think I must be sitting on something....but it could have turned into an elephant when the lights went off..." - it COULD have, but it didn't. You make a conclusion about what you don't KNOW based on what you intuit. That's why it's called FAITH. (That's also what people like Ouroborus apparently don't understand.)

 

Post a Comment

<< Home