A friend sent this to me:
Remarks from CBS Sunday Morning - Ben Stein
I Only hope we find G'D again before it is too late ! !
The following was written by Ben Stein and recited by him on CBS Sunday Morning Commentary.
My confession:
I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees, Christmas trees. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are, Christmas trees.
It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, 'Merry Christmas' to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it.It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu . If people want a creche, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.
I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from, that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.
Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities came from and where the America we knew went to.
In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking.
Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her 'How could God let something like this happen?' (regarding Hurricane Katrina).. Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, 'I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?'
In light of recent events... Terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself.. And we said OK.
Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave, because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said okay.
Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.
Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with 'WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.'
Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire, but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.
Are you laughing yet?
Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it.
Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us.
Pass it on if you think it has merit.
If not, then just discard it... No one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in.
My Best Regards, Honestly and respectfully,
Ben Stein
Monday, November 23, 2009
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
FACTS AND FABLES
18. In the study of God's messages to women, I wish you to approach His Book as though, like a pagan, you had never seen it before, and knew nothing about it. Will you endeavour to cultivate this spirit of fresh inquiry? When we have heard, over and over again, with unquestioning credulity an explanation of a thing, even though the explanation be grotesque, it comes back to us with all the force of natural fact. The mention of the thing recalls to the imagination that explanation, and no other seems right. If there be an error in the explanation, we arrive at a point where we can detect it only by a real effort; the false view comes to mind first, and hinders acceptance of the true. The rabbis told their Jewish scholars that there were many fish in the sea hundreds of miles long; and that Adam was so tall, before he fell, that his head touched the firmament. After hearing such tales, oft repeated as assured facts, it is not likely that the Jewish youth could hear the story of Jonah without imagining a fish such as never existed; nor could he hear the name "Adam" without thinking of a great giant; and he would probably suppose that the Bible said these things. They seemed natural conclusions from the Scripture, but they were wildest fables. Let us get false pictures out of mind, by weighing the evidence.
19. Therefore, we will accept no views as authoritative simply because that book, so valued among the Jews, the Talmud, teaches them,--not even because Christian tradition teaches them. We will test matters by the general trend of Bible teaching itself. The famous Earl of Chatham said, once, in a great speech in the House of Commons, "I confess that I am apt to distrust the refinements of learning, because I have seen the ablest and most learned men equally liable to deceive themselves, and to mislead others." Let us maintain this attitude of mind.
20. Savonarola wrought a revolution in the morals and manners of Florence, and he did it by adhering, and teaching the people to adhere, to two underlying principles upon which he based the chapters of his remarkable book, The Triumph of the Cross. These were, "Nothing has been learnt from any man,” and, "We accept no authority save our own experience and reason." Dr. Campbell Morgan has recently voiced the same spirit in his words, "Do interpret our Bible by what the Bible says, and not by what men say that it says." We will take these as our basic principles in Bible study.
21. But does not Savonarola's use of the word "reason" savor of scepticism? Yes, as to the worth of "traditions of men;" and it savors also of the "glorious liberty of the children of God," to study the Bible for themselves, under the immediate tuition of the Holy Spirit. Savonarola further explains himself: "Not that faith, the spontaneous gift of God, can be acquired through reason, but because reason is a useful weapon with which to combat unbelievers, or open to them the way of salvation, to arouse the lukewarm, and give strength to the faithful" (1 Peter 3:15).[4] But while not bowing to any human authority as final, yet we will glean what information we can from writers; we will quote them to corroborate our statements, especially if we might have expected the one quoted to have taken an opposite view, had it been tenable at all; and make use of their works in any manner useful to our purpose: But always remembering that we bow to no authority as final but the Word of God, as illuminated by the Spirit. We will endeavor to "interpret the Bible by what the Bible says, not by what men say that it says."
22. Some will say that it is not worth our while to expend any time on the early chapters of Genesis, but that we should treat them as mere "folklore." We are convinced that they are history, and to women very valuable history. But even if we did not believe this, yet women could not afford to ignore them, for the sufferings of women from a false interpretation of their teachings, have been no unreality, and that false interpretation must be resisted.
23. Please read Genesis 1:26-28, and with it, Genesis 5:2. We find that at the first the name "Adam" belonged equally to male and female. God said: "Let US make man [or "Adam,"--it is the same word] in our likeness;" and the story proceeds,--"In the image of God made HE HIM, male and female made HE THEM." Please note that in the second clause, man is spoken of as both singular and plural. What does this mean?
24. The theory has been held among the Jews, at least as far back as the days of Jesus Christ, as shown by the writings of Philo, that man was, at the beginning, male and female in one person. This belief will also be found among other people besides the Jews. Next, after the androgynous state, it is supposed that human beings were born in pairs, male and female twins. Then there would have existed a male and female Cain; a male and female Abel, etc.; and thus Cain secured his wife. If this be correct, it lends force to the Lord's words in Matthew 19:4 (R. V.), concerning the sanctity of marriage,—and we must remember He was speaking to men who were doubtless familiar with the theory: "Have, ye not read, that He Who made [no "them" in the original] from the beginning made them male and female." The rabbis did not seem to recognize an "and" in the expression in Genesis, "male and female," but read "male-female." Dr. Hershon, in his book, Talmudic Miscellany, says: "There is a notion among the rabbis that Adam was possessed originally of a bi-sexual organism, and this conclusion they draw from Genesis 1:27, where it is said, 'God created man in His own image; male-female created He them."' This view is not unscientific, but the reverse, as those know who are acquainted with such books as The Evolution of Sex by Geddes and Thomson. We will presently continue this topic.
25. Five blessings were pronounced on them by God. Genesis 1:28.
(1) "Be fruitful:" (2) "Multiply ye:" (3, "Replenish the earth:" (4) "Subdue It:" (5) "Have dominion over . . . fish . . . fowl . . . and every living thing that moveth upon the earth." Dr. Harper in his Hebrew Method and Manual renders this literally, bringing out the plural form of each verb, so we will reproduce his translation: "Be ye fruitful and multiply ye, and fill ye the earth, and subdue ye her [the word for earth is feminine]; and have ye dominion," etc. The plural is clearly expressed in each form. As the Word distinctly says that these blessings were pronounced upon male and female, we observe the perfect equality of the sexes by God's original creation.
26. Finally, note that when God had finished all His creation, including male and female man, He pronounced all "very good."
Additional Notes on Paragraph 24.
The word androgynous means the same as the adjective hermaphrodite, though it applies properly to the human species. Hermaphroditism is defined by Webster as "the union of the two sexes in the same individual." The following quotations from Geddes and Thomson may be useful to those who have not seen this work, or similar ones: "Some observations by Laulaine as to the embryonic organs are of interest. . . . He distinguishes in birds and mammals three stages in the individual development of the reproductive organs: (1) Germiparity, (2) Hermaphroditism, (3) Differentiated Unisexuality" (p. 35). "One view of the matter is that hermaphroditism was the primitive state among multicellular animals" (p. 84). "Minot in his Theory of Genoblasts, or sexual elements, ventures little further than regarding male and female as derivatives of primitive hermaphroditism in two opposite directions" (p. 127).
The following is from Darwin, whose Darwinian theory we do not believe; but that theory could never have gained acceptance anywhere had he not based it upon well-founded facts: "It has long been known that in the vertebrate kingdom one sex bears rudiments of various accessory parts, appertaining to the reproductive system, which properly belongs to the opposite sex; and it has now been ascertained that at a very early embryonic period both sexes possess true male and female glands." It is well to note, as we proceed, how the Scriptures in no way contradict scientific facts such as these, discovered only thousands of years afterwards by human research. However, in all this which we have said regarding the physical, or animal, form of mankind, as having resemblance to God, whose image man bears, we need to remember that God Himself is pure Spirit.
Notes
[4] “I oppose not rational to spiritual, for spiritual is most rational,” Whichcote.
19. Therefore, we will accept no views as authoritative simply because that book, so valued among the Jews, the Talmud, teaches them,--not even because Christian tradition teaches them. We will test matters by the general trend of Bible teaching itself. The famous Earl of Chatham said, once, in a great speech in the House of Commons, "I confess that I am apt to distrust the refinements of learning, because I have seen the ablest and most learned men equally liable to deceive themselves, and to mislead others." Let us maintain this attitude of mind.
20. Savonarola wrought a revolution in the morals and manners of Florence, and he did it by adhering, and teaching the people to adhere, to two underlying principles upon which he based the chapters of his remarkable book, The Triumph of the Cross. These were, "Nothing has been learnt from any man,” and, "We accept no authority save our own experience and reason." Dr. Campbell Morgan has recently voiced the same spirit in his words, "Do interpret our Bible by what the Bible says, and not by what men say that it says." We will take these as our basic principles in Bible study.
21. But does not Savonarola's use of the word "reason" savor of scepticism? Yes, as to the worth of "traditions of men;" and it savors also of the "glorious liberty of the children of God," to study the Bible for themselves, under the immediate tuition of the Holy Spirit. Savonarola further explains himself: "Not that faith, the spontaneous gift of God, can be acquired through reason, but because reason is a useful weapon with which to combat unbelievers, or open to them the way of salvation, to arouse the lukewarm, and give strength to the faithful" (1 Peter 3:15).[4] But while not bowing to any human authority as final, yet we will glean what information we can from writers; we will quote them to corroborate our statements, especially if we might have expected the one quoted to have taken an opposite view, had it been tenable at all; and make use of their works in any manner useful to our purpose: But always remembering that we bow to no authority as final but the Word of God, as illuminated by the Spirit. We will endeavor to "interpret the Bible by what the Bible says, not by what men say that it says."
22. Some will say that it is not worth our while to expend any time on the early chapters of Genesis, but that we should treat them as mere "folklore." We are convinced that they are history, and to women very valuable history. But even if we did not believe this, yet women could not afford to ignore them, for the sufferings of women from a false interpretation of their teachings, have been no unreality, and that false interpretation must be resisted.
23. Please read Genesis 1:26-28, and with it, Genesis 5:2. We find that at the first the name "Adam" belonged equally to male and female. God said: "Let US make man [or "Adam,"--it is the same word] in our likeness;" and the story proceeds,--"In the image of God made HE HIM, male and female made HE THEM." Please note that in the second clause, man is spoken of as both singular and plural. What does this mean?
24. The theory has been held among the Jews, at least as far back as the days of Jesus Christ, as shown by the writings of Philo, that man was, at the beginning, male and female in one person. This belief will also be found among other people besides the Jews. Next, after the androgynous state, it is supposed that human beings were born in pairs, male and female twins. Then there would have existed a male and female Cain; a male and female Abel, etc.; and thus Cain secured his wife. If this be correct, it lends force to the Lord's words in Matthew 19:4 (R. V.), concerning the sanctity of marriage,—and we must remember He was speaking to men who were doubtless familiar with the theory: "Have, ye not read, that He Who made [no "them" in the original] from the beginning made them male and female." The rabbis did not seem to recognize an "and" in the expression in Genesis, "male and female," but read "male-female." Dr. Hershon, in his book, Talmudic Miscellany, says: "There is a notion among the rabbis that Adam was possessed originally of a bi-sexual organism, and this conclusion they draw from Genesis 1:27, where it is said, 'God created man in His own image; male-female created He them."' This view is not unscientific, but the reverse, as those know who are acquainted with such books as The Evolution of Sex by Geddes and Thomson. We will presently continue this topic.
25. Five blessings were pronounced on them by God. Genesis 1:28.
(1) "Be fruitful:" (2) "Multiply ye:" (3, "Replenish the earth:" (4) "Subdue It:" (5) "Have dominion over . . . fish . . . fowl . . . and every living thing that moveth upon the earth." Dr. Harper in his Hebrew Method and Manual renders this literally, bringing out the plural form of each verb, so we will reproduce his translation: "Be ye fruitful and multiply ye, and fill ye the earth, and subdue ye her [the word for earth is feminine]; and have ye dominion," etc. The plural is clearly expressed in each form. As the Word distinctly says that these blessings were pronounced upon male and female, we observe the perfect equality of the sexes by God's original creation.
26. Finally, note that when God had finished all His creation, including male and female man, He pronounced all "very good."
Additional Notes on Paragraph 24.
The word androgynous means the same as the adjective hermaphrodite, though it applies properly to the human species. Hermaphroditism is defined by Webster as "the union of the two sexes in the same individual." The following quotations from Geddes and Thomson may be useful to those who have not seen this work, or similar ones: "Some observations by Laulaine as to the embryonic organs are of interest. . . . He distinguishes in birds and mammals three stages in the individual development of the reproductive organs: (1) Germiparity, (2) Hermaphroditism, (3) Differentiated Unisexuality" (p. 35). "One view of the matter is that hermaphroditism was the primitive state among multicellular animals" (p. 84). "Minot in his Theory of Genoblasts, or sexual elements, ventures little further than regarding male and female as derivatives of primitive hermaphroditism in two opposite directions" (p. 127).
The following is from Darwin, whose Darwinian theory we do not believe; but that theory could never have gained acceptance anywhere had he not based it upon well-founded facts: "It has long been known that in the vertebrate kingdom one sex bears rudiments of various accessory parts, appertaining to the reproductive system, which properly belongs to the opposite sex; and it has now been ascertained that at a very early embryonic period both sexes possess true male and female glands." It is well to note, as we proceed, how the Scriptures in no way contradict scientific facts such as these, discovered only thousands of years afterwards by human research. However, in all this which we have said regarding the physical, or animal, form of mankind, as having resemblance to God, whose image man bears, we need to remember that God Himself is pure Spirit.
Notes
[4] “I oppose not rational to spiritual, for spiritual is most rational,” Whichcote.
TEXTUAL CRITICISM
9. We repeat: The Hebrew text of the Old Testament, to which Jewish scholars have added both the vowel-letters “a h w j,” and vowel signs, may have mistakes, as regards these vowels, but must not be called into question any further. But there are destructive critics who go much farther than this. They manipulate the consonants. We will illustrate, in a crude manner—it cannot be critical—their method, taking an English sentence for the purpose. First we rob it of its vowels, and then we have the following:
GDSLVDTHWRLDTHTHGVHSNLBGTTNSNTHT
WHSVRBLVTHNHMSHLDNTPRSH.
10. Now let us decipher, remembering that according to Hebrew usage “the” is often lacking where we would use it, and therefore we may supply it; and sometimes we can read a consonant double, sometimes single. Beginning by supplying a “the,” and inserting vowels in small letters, at the same time spacing the words, we read: “The aGeD SLaVe DoTH WeaRiLy Do THaT Hay. i GaVe His [double the S] SoN LieBiG[3] To iNSiNuaTe [IHTW we alter to WTH WiTH] HiS VeRy BeLoVeD [we insert a D here, on the supposition that the text is incomplete] Tea (double the T] THeN He SHouLD NoT PeRiSH.” There is an M before the word “should,” but we drop it out.
11. In this long sentence we have not supposed many corrections necessary; and some of the corrections are lawful from the standpoint and practice of all who interpret the original text. But aside from these lawful ones, is this sort of manipulation of the consonants of the original text lawful work, with the Word of God? NO! The work of these destructive higher critics in clearing up obscure passages in the Old Testament is both tempting and fascinating, and in their works they give praise to those who have made “brilliant guesses” as to the meaning of certain sentences. The method is tempting because by its looseness almost any passage would permit of some sense being read into it, whereas, otherwise many passages will lie in more or less obscurity for centuries, before their precise meaning will be discovered. Yet, recalling the fact that though cut glass looks prettier than uncut diamond, it is worthless in comparison, we choose the consonants unaltered, even if the sense is obscure, to a pretty setting forth of mere sentiment.
12. Having made our choice, then, let us think again of the English sentence, as though it were, in very truth, an obscure Hebrew passage. It is, in point of fact, a verse from the Bible. If we cannot read it at once, we will keep it at hand and pray over it. If it be indeed a very word from God, it is worth years, or even centuries of patient waiting for God to reveal its meaning. We will assume that after a while you pass through a new spiritual experience, and all the Bible takes on fresh meaning to you,--for this result always follows a nearer approach to God. Your soul is full of love to God, and a deeper love of His Word. Fresh messages of love shine forth from every page of His Book. God is now first in all your thoughts, and turning to this sentence once more, for light, it seems to you that the opening consonants, GD, must mean “God,” not “aGeD.” Yes, and the next four consonants naturally suggest “So LoVeD.” Ah! now you have it! Not “aged slave,” but “God so loved.” We are on the right track. How beautifully it all unravels, without the loss or change of a single consonant! The printed Word tells you half the story, and your heart’s experience the other half, and the meaning of the sentence which so long may have baffled you is, “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish.”
13. Now scholarship alone did not reveal the meaning to you, nor did experience alone, but a combination of the two. We are mistaken when we think we can get along on a slovenly and incomplete knowledge of the Bible. No amount of spiritual experience, or even the Spirit’s help and instruction will take the place of the study God requires us to put upon His Word. The world, the Church and women are suffering sadly from woman’s lack of ability to read the Word of God in its original languages. There are truths therein that speak to the deepest needs of a woman’s heart, and that give light upon problems that women alone are called upon to solve. Without knowledge of the original, on the part of a sufficient number of women to influence the translation of the Bible in accordance with their perception of the meaning of these truths, these needed passages will remain uninterpreted, or misinterpreted.
14. Such truths man is not equipped to understand, much less to set forth to the understanding of women, for, as the very learned Canon Payne-Smith has said: “Men never do understand anything [he refers to Bible translation] unless already in their minds they have some kindred ideas.” And such truths as are messages to women, women without knowledge of the original languages, even if having the spiritual experience, cannot discover. They find such a message often an inexplicable mystery, or even distorted into meaning something painful.
15. To return to the sentence to which we supplied the vowels: We purposely took a verse from the New Testament, and the greatest promise in the whole Bible. (Of course it does not stand in the original text in Hebrew, but in Greek). We wished to demonstrate that the most precious thing in the Word might be changed into insipid nonsense, perhaps, by the manipulation of two or three consonants of a vowel less language. They are like strong talons holding tenaciously to the only correct sense that can be legitimately made of the sentence. Bear in mind, further, a point which is passed over lightly by the destructive critics of the present time: With each consonant that is changed in Hebrew textual criticism, there is involved a change, or several changes, of the unexpressed vowels. The alteration of a consonant is not a trivial one at all, when it invades a consonantal language.
16. Twice, since the opening of the Christian era, Christians have so neglected the Hebrew Bible as to have lost the language, and they have turned to the Jews to acquire it again. They lost it first, Dr. Wall tells us, “for somewhat more than 100 years immediately preceding the time when Origen flourished [born A.D. 185]: and again, in the dark ages for a long series of centuries, terminated by the revival of learning in Europe.” The rabbis who taught the Christians each time would naturally teach them, not towards, but away from Christian ideals, and towards Talmudic ideals. Because of this fact, some things in the Old Testament, relating to women especially, demand a very careful, critical investigation, as to their precise meaning, since we know that the Talmudic view as regards women was not a just, unprejudiced view, by any means.
17. So much, as to the Hebrew Old Testament. As to the Greek New Testament, we shall not be faced with the same difficulties, and in our Lessons are not likely to call its text, as it now stands, into serious question. The Greek has always expressed its vowels, as well as its consonants, and hence no question arises at this point. The punctuation of the Greek, for the most part, is of recent invention, and at some points seriously to be questioned. But as to the interpretation of its words and their usage, there is an extensive Greek literature, independent of the New Testament, to give light, whereas, practically all that exists of ancient Hebrew literature is in the Bible. Modern Hebrew, as spoken by Jews, is merely the use of Bible words in their traditional meanings, which may be correct, but are sometimes doubtful, or even demonstrably incorrect.
Notes
[3] i.e., beef extract
GDSLVDTHWRLDTHTHGVHSNLBGTTNSNTHT
WHSVRBLVTHNHMSHLDNTPRSH.
10. Now let us decipher, remembering that according to Hebrew usage “the” is often lacking where we would use it, and therefore we may supply it; and sometimes we can read a consonant double, sometimes single. Beginning by supplying a “the,” and inserting vowels in small letters, at the same time spacing the words, we read: “The aGeD SLaVe DoTH WeaRiLy Do THaT Hay. i GaVe His [double the S] SoN LieBiG[3] To iNSiNuaTe [IHTW we alter to WTH WiTH] HiS VeRy BeLoVeD [we insert a D here, on the supposition that the text is incomplete] Tea (double the T] THeN He SHouLD NoT PeRiSH.” There is an M before the word “should,” but we drop it out.
11. In this long sentence we have not supposed many corrections necessary; and some of the corrections are lawful from the standpoint and practice of all who interpret the original text. But aside from these lawful ones, is this sort of manipulation of the consonants of the original text lawful work, with the Word of God? NO! The work of these destructive higher critics in clearing up obscure passages in the Old Testament is both tempting and fascinating, and in their works they give praise to those who have made “brilliant guesses” as to the meaning of certain sentences. The method is tempting because by its looseness almost any passage would permit of some sense being read into it, whereas, otherwise many passages will lie in more or less obscurity for centuries, before their precise meaning will be discovered. Yet, recalling the fact that though cut glass looks prettier than uncut diamond, it is worthless in comparison, we choose the consonants unaltered, even if the sense is obscure, to a pretty setting forth of mere sentiment.
12. Having made our choice, then, let us think again of the English sentence, as though it were, in very truth, an obscure Hebrew passage. It is, in point of fact, a verse from the Bible. If we cannot read it at once, we will keep it at hand and pray over it. If it be indeed a very word from God, it is worth years, or even centuries of patient waiting for God to reveal its meaning. We will assume that after a while you pass through a new spiritual experience, and all the Bible takes on fresh meaning to you,--for this result always follows a nearer approach to God. Your soul is full of love to God, and a deeper love of His Word. Fresh messages of love shine forth from every page of His Book. God is now first in all your thoughts, and turning to this sentence once more, for light, it seems to you that the opening consonants, GD, must mean “God,” not “aGeD.” Yes, and the next four consonants naturally suggest “So LoVeD.” Ah! now you have it! Not “aged slave,” but “God so loved.” We are on the right track. How beautifully it all unravels, without the loss or change of a single consonant! The printed Word tells you half the story, and your heart’s experience the other half, and the meaning of the sentence which so long may have baffled you is, “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish.”
13. Now scholarship alone did not reveal the meaning to you, nor did experience alone, but a combination of the two. We are mistaken when we think we can get along on a slovenly and incomplete knowledge of the Bible. No amount of spiritual experience, or even the Spirit’s help and instruction will take the place of the study God requires us to put upon His Word. The world, the Church and women are suffering sadly from woman’s lack of ability to read the Word of God in its original languages. There are truths therein that speak to the deepest needs of a woman’s heart, and that give light upon problems that women alone are called upon to solve. Without knowledge of the original, on the part of a sufficient number of women to influence the translation of the Bible in accordance with their perception of the meaning of these truths, these needed passages will remain uninterpreted, or misinterpreted.
14. Such truths man is not equipped to understand, much less to set forth to the understanding of women, for, as the very learned Canon Payne-Smith has said: “Men never do understand anything [he refers to Bible translation] unless already in their minds they have some kindred ideas.” And such truths as are messages to women, women without knowledge of the original languages, even if having the spiritual experience, cannot discover. They find such a message often an inexplicable mystery, or even distorted into meaning something painful.
15. To return to the sentence to which we supplied the vowels: We purposely took a verse from the New Testament, and the greatest promise in the whole Bible. (Of course it does not stand in the original text in Hebrew, but in Greek). We wished to demonstrate that the most precious thing in the Word might be changed into insipid nonsense, perhaps, by the manipulation of two or three consonants of a vowel less language. They are like strong talons holding tenaciously to the only correct sense that can be legitimately made of the sentence. Bear in mind, further, a point which is passed over lightly by the destructive critics of the present time: With each consonant that is changed in Hebrew textual criticism, there is involved a change, or several changes, of the unexpressed vowels. The alteration of a consonant is not a trivial one at all, when it invades a consonantal language.
16. Twice, since the opening of the Christian era, Christians have so neglected the Hebrew Bible as to have lost the language, and they have turned to the Jews to acquire it again. They lost it first, Dr. Wall tells us, “for somewhat more than 100 years immediately preceding the time when Origen flourished [born A.D. 185]: and again, in the dark ages for a long series of centuries, terminated by the revival of learning in Europe.” The rabbis who taught the Christians each time would naturally teach them, not towards, but away from Christian ideals, and towards Talmudic ideals. Because of this fact, some things in the Old Testament, relating to women especially, demand a very careful, critical investigation, as to their precise meaning, since we know that the Talmudic view as regards women was not a just, unprejudiced view, by any means.
17. So much, as to the Hebrew Old Testament. As to the Greek New Testament, we shall not be faced with the same difficulties, and in our Lessons are not likely to call its text, as it now stands, into serious question. The Greek has always expressed its vowels, as well as its consonants, and hence no question arises at this point. The punctuation of the Greek, for the most part, is of recent invention, and at some points seriously to be questioned. But as to the interpretation of its words and their usage, there is an extensive Greek literature, independent of the New Testament, to give light, whereas, practically all that exists of ancient Hebrew literature is in the Bible. Modern Hebrew, as spoken by Jews, is merely the use of Bible words in their traditional meanings, which may be correct, but are sometimes doubtful, or even demonstrably incorrect.
Notes
[3] i.e., beef extract
Sunday, November 01, 2009
1. FUNDAMENTAL
1. The object of these lessons is at least three-fold:
(1) To point out to women the fallacies in the "Scriptural" argument for the supremacy of the male sex.
(2) To show the true position of women in the economy of God.
(3) To show women their need of knowing the Bible in its original tongues, in order the better to equip themselves to confute these fallacies, and also to show that such a knowledge of the Bible would have great influence for good on the progress of the Church and womanhood.
2. Our argument assumes that the Bible is all that it claims for itself. It is (1) Inspired, 2 Timothy 3:16;[1] (2) Infallible, Isaiah 40:8; and (3) Inviolable, John 10:35. Indeed, no other basis of procedure is available for us. However freely certain male scholars of the present day manipulate the text, no confidence would be placed in the results thus obtained by a woman, at once, she would be faced with the charge that she had manipulated the text to suit her argument. But a manipulation of the text is unnecessary, even if we thought it lawful under any circumstances.
3. The assumption that the text needs amending, to any great extent, is very erroneous. A candid acceptance of the testimony as to its history proves that the original text has been preserved in manuscripts with scarcely an important change. It is known that the Scribes wrote out their copy with immense care, as to the Hebrew Old Testament. They copied even supposed errors, calling attention to seeming irregularities by slight marks, but not venturing to correct. They have left records to show that when copying they counted each consonant and vowel-letter in each line, and kept records of the same, in order to verify their finished work. Superstition alone was enough to cause the Jews to preserve their Scripture text inviolable, they prized the letter beyond the spirit of the Word. The Apostle Paul speaks in direct testimony of their faithful preservation of the Hebrew text, since had it been otherwise, the Jews would have been less in favor with God, Romans 3:1-2. Jesus Christ strongly denounced the misinterpretation of the Scriptures by the "traditions" of the Jews, Mark 7:9-13, etc., but He never accused the Jews of corrupting the text of their Scriptures.
4. The Lord Jesus said, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall not pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." The "jot" (letter j), is nearly like our single quotation mark ( ‘ ), in form and size; the "tittle" is not a letter, but the distinguishing point of difference between one Hebrew letter and another much like it. For instance, the Jewish rabbis, who taught also the infallibility of the text, in a treatise called Vayikra Rabba (s.19) declare:
1. "Should anyone, in Deut. 6:4, change
(d) to (r)
he would ruin the world."
2. "Should anyone, in Ex. 34:14, change
(r) to (d)
he would ruin the world."
3. "Should anyone, in Lev. 22:32, change
(ch) to (h)
he would ruin the world."
4. "Should anyone, in Psa. 150:6, change
(h) to (ch)
he would ruin the world."
5. "Should anyone, in Jer. 5:12, change
(b) to (k)
he would ruin the world."
6. "Should anyone, in 1 Sam. 2:2, change
(k) to (b)
he would ruin the world."
Because these passages would then mean respectively,
1. "Hear, O Israel; the Lord is a false Lord."
2. "Thou shalt not worship the one true God."
3. "Neither shall ye praise [for "profane"] My Holy name."
4. "Let everything that hath breath profane [for "praise"] the Lord."
5. "They have lied like [for "belied"] the Lord."
6. "There is no holiness in [for "none holy as"] the Lord."
5. But when we speak of the Bible as inspired, infallible and inviolable, we do not refer to our English version, or any mere version, but to the original text. Prof. Deissmann has well said, "All translation implies some, if only a slight, alteration of the sense of the original." Now we must explain more precisely what "the original text" really implies, and how much it includes. The original Hebrew of the Old Testament was written without any spaces between words in totally different looking letters from those we call "Hebrew” at the present time; and the language as first written contained no vowels, as though the English of Genesis 1:1 were written:
NTHBGNNGGDCRTDTHHVNSNDTHRTH
No distinction existed between small and capital letters, and doubled letters were often written only once, as we have indicated in the word, "beginning."
6. Hebrew ceased to be spoken by the common people during the Babylonian captivity. It was practically a "dead language" as early as B.C. 250. In the absence of expressed vowels, its pronunciation was likely to become lost. So the Scribes took four consonants, "a h w and j," and inserted them into the text to indicate the vowel sounds. While this device helped to some extent, in the end it led to confusion, often raising the question: "Is this letter a consonant, belonging to the original, or is it a vowel-letter, added by the Scribes?" Moreover the insertion of these vowel-letters did not prove sufficient; then, as late as 600-800 A.D., a whole system of vowel-signs was added, most elaborately indicating the vowels of each word as tradition had preserved it. These vowel-signs were interlinear, and therefore did not confuse the text, as did the vowel-letters. With vowel-signs we might indicate the pronunciation of Genesis 1:1, as given above, something like this (separating the words):
_N TH B!GNNG GD CR TD TH HVNS ND TH RTH.[2]
7. We understand, now that the Hebrew text may have mistakes which we are free (with due respect for the scholarship which has given to it its present form, and due reverence for God's Word), to amend, so far as the vowel-letters and the vowel-signs are concerned, for no one claims that the Scribes who made these additions to the text in comparatively recent times did "inspired" work, as did the original authors.
8. And then, women must never forget that all this addition to the text was not only the work of men exclusively, but of men who, in their day, were, as Jews, bitter opponents of the teachings and of the spirit of Christianity. Furthermore, if we may judge from the spirit of the teachings of the Talmud on the "woman question" (for the Talmud was then in the ascendancy, and the sayings of the rabbis considered more authoritative than Scripture itself), these amenders of the original text, as a class, held women in utter contempt. Dr. Paul Isaac Hershon (to quote one of the many witnesses to this statement) says: "The rabbis, over and over again, teach the utter inferiority of woman: they put a definite seal as it were on the degraded life of the female sex which for ages has been lived by women in the East as in the West." A certain Rabbi Yochanan, we are told, quotes the Mishnic (the Mishna is the most ancient and important part of the Talmud) rabbis as teaching that a man may do as he pleases with his wife: "It is like a piece of meat brought from the shambles, which one may eat, salt, roast, partially or wholly cooked." A woman once complained before Rav (a great rabbi) of bad treatment from her husband. He replied: "What is the difference between thee and a fish, which one may eat either broiled or cooked?" But Jews alone did not hold women in contempt at that time in human history. It was an unfortunate time, as regards women, for fixing the sense of the Holy Scriptures.
[1] We shall use the Authorized Version of the Bible throughout these Lessons, unless we indicate the Revised by "R. V." In this place (2 Tim. 3:16) the R.V.is both incorrect and misleading.
[2] The dash (-) before three words takes the place of a needed consonant, -since no word in the Hebrew begins with a vowel. The ēē sound is always indicated by the "jot, "additionally,—so we introduce this "jot" three times.
(1) To point out to women the fallacies in the "Scriptural" argument for the supremacy of the male sex.
(2) To show the true position of women in the economy of God.
(3) To show women their need of knowing the Bible in its original tongues, in order the better to equip themselves to confute these fallacies, and also to show that such a knowledge of the Bible would have great influence for good on the progress of the Church and womanhood.
2. Our argument assumes that the Bible is all that it claims for itself. It is (1) Inspired, 2 Timothy 3:16;[1] (2) Infallible, Isaiah 40:8; and (3) Inviolable, John 10:35. Indeed, no other basis of procedure is available for us. However freely certain male scholars of the present day manipulate the text, no confidence would be placed in the results thus obtained by a woman, at once, she would be faced with the charge that she had manipulated the text to suit her argument. But a manipulation of the text is unnecessary, even if we thought it lawful under any circumstances.
3. The assumption that the text needs amending, to any great extent, is very erroneous. A candid acceptance of the testimony as to its history proves that the original text has been preserved in manuscripts with scarcely an important change. It is known that the Scribes wrote out their copy with immense care, as to the Hebrew Old Testament. They copied even supposed errors, calling attention to seeming irregularities by slight marks, but not venturing to correct. They have left records to show that when copying they counted each consonant and vowel-letter in each line, and kept records of the same, in order to verify their finished work. Superstition alone was enough to cause the Jews to preserve their Scripture text inviolable, they prized the letter beyond the spirit of the Word. The Apostle Paul speaks in direct testimony of their faithful preservation of the Hebrew text, since had it been otherwise, the Jews would have been less in favor with God, Romans 3:1-2. Jesus Christ strongly denounced the misinterpretation of the Scriptures by the "traditions" of the Jews, Mark 7:9-13, etc., but He never accused the Jews of corrupting the text of their Scriptures.
4. The Lord Jesus said, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall not pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." The "jot" (letter j), is nearly like our single quotation mark ( ‘ ), in form and size; the "tittle" is not a letter, but the distinguishing point of difference between one Hebrew letter and another much like it. For instance, the Jewish rabbis, who taught also the infallibility of the text, in a treatise called Vayikra Rabba (s.19) declare:
1. "Should anyone, in Deut. 6:4, change
(d) to (r)
he would ruin the world."
2. "Should anyone, in Ex. 34:14, change
(r) to (d)
he would ruin the world."
3. "Should anyone, in Lev. 22:32, change
(ch) to (h)
he would ruin the world."
4. "Should anyone, in Psa. 150:6, change
(h) to (ch)
he would ruin the world."
5. "Should anyone, in Jer. 5:12, change
(b) to (k)
he would ruin the world."
6. "Should anyone, in 1 Sam. 2:2, change
(k) to (b)
he would ruin the world."
Because these passages would then mean respectively,
1. "Hear, O Israel; the Lord is a false Lord."
2. "Thou shalt not worship the one true God."
3. "Neither shall ye praise [for "profane"] My Holy name."
4. "Let everything that hath breath profane [for "praise"] the Lord."
5. "They have lied like [for "belied"] the Lord."
6. "There is no holiness in [for "none holy as"] the Lord."
5. But when we speak of the Bible as inspired, infallible and inviolable, we do not refer to our English version, or any mere version, but to the original text. Prof. Deissmann has well said, "All translation implies some, if only a slight, alteration of the sense of the original." Now we must explain more precisely what "the original text" really implies, and how much it includes. The original Hebrew of the Old Testament was written without any spaces between words in totally different looking letters from those we call "Hebrew” at the present time; and the language as first written contained no vowels, as though the English of Genesis 1:1 were written:
NTHBGNNGGDCRTDTHHVNSNDTHRTH
No distinction existed between small and capital letters, and doubled letters were often written only once, as we have indicated in the word, "beginning."
6. Hebrew ceased to be spoken by the common people during the Babylonian captivity. It was practically a "dead language" as early as B.C. 250. In the absence of expressed vowels, its pronunciation was likely to become lost. So the Scribes took four consonants, "a h w and j," and inserted them into the text to indicate the vowel sounds. While this device helped to some extent, in the end it led to confusion, often raising the question: "Is this letter a consonant, belonging to the original, or is it a vowel-letter, added by the Scribes?" Moreover the insertion of these vowel-letters did not prove sufficient; then, as late as 600-800 A.D., a whole system of vowel-signs was added, most elaborately indicating the vowels of each word as tradition had preserved it. These vowel-signs were interlinear, and therefore did not confuse the text, as did the vowel-letters. With vowel-signs we might indicate the pronunciation of Genesis 1:1, as given above, something like this (separating the words):
_N TH B!GNNG GD CR TD TH HVNS ND TH RTH.[2]
7. We understand, now that the Hebrew text may have mistakes which we are free (with due respect for the scholarship which has given to it its present form, and due reverence for God's Word), to amend, so far as the vowel-letters and the vowel-signs are concerned, for no one claims that the Scribes who made these additions to the text in comparatively recent times did "inspired" work, as did the original authors.
8. And then, women must never forget that all this addition to the text was not only the work of men exclusively, but of men who, in their day, were, as Jews, bitter opponents of the teachings and of the spirit of Christianity. Furthermore, if we may judge from the spirit of the teachings of the Talmud on the "woman question" (for the Talmud was then in the ascendancy, and the sayings of the rabbis considered more authoritative than Scripture itself), these amenders of the original text, as a class, held women in utter contempt. Dr. Paul Isaac Hershon (to quote one of the many witnesses to this statement) says: "The rabbis, over and over again, teach the utter inferiority of woman: they put a definite seal as it were on the degraded life of the female sex which for ages has been lived by women in the East as in the West." A certain Rabbi Yochanan, we are told, quotes the Mishnic (the Mishna is the most ancient and important part of the Talmud) rabbis as teaching that a man may do as he pleases with his wife: "It is like a piece of meat brought from the shambles, which one may eat, salt, roast, partially or wholly cooked." A woman once complained before Rav (a great rabbi) of bad treatment from her husband. He replied: "What is the difference between thee and a fish, which one may eat either broiled or cooked?" But Jews alone did not hold women in contempt at that time in human history. It was an unfortunate time, as regards women, for fixing the sense of the Holy Scriptures.
[1] We shall use the Authorized Version of the Bible throughout these Lessons, unless we indicate the Revised by "R. V." In this place (2 Tim. 3:16) the R.V.is both incorrect and misleading.
[2] The dash (-) before three words takes the place of a needed consonant, -since no word in the Hebrew begins with a vowel. The ēē sound is always indicated by the "jot, "additionally,—so we introduce this "jot" three times.
GOD'S WORD TO WOMEN by Katherine Bushnell
AUTHOR’S NOTE
"Dost thou desire to study to advantage? Consult God more than books, and ask Him humbly to make thee understand what thou readest. Go from time to time to be refreshed at the feet of Christ, under His Cross. Some moments of repose there give fresh vigor and new light: interrupt thy study by short but fervent supplications."
This is a Study Book, yet it has been our hope to make the book equally interesting for mere reading.
Having been planned as a Study Book, paragraphs are to be paid attention to, not pages; it is indexed at the back on this plan. Those who do not know Hebrew and Greek, and yet wish to test its every point, will find much help in doing this in Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible, especially in editions from the seventh onward, because of the valuable Index-Lexicons at the end of the volume, informing the student of the number of times any certain Greek or Hebrew word occurs in the Bible and of all its various translations.
Some years ago, Mrs. Alexander Whyte, wife of the late Principal Whyte of New College, Edinburgh, Scotland, became interested in the Lessons, and appealed to Dr. Rendel Harris for an opinion of them from his point of scholarship, or of some other able critic. Dr. Harris referred Mrs. Whyte to Dr. A. Mingana, Professor of Arabic at Manchester University, England, and Curator of Oriental Manuscripts in the John Rylands Library, which contains a wealth of such matter.
Dr. Mingana has read carefully through the Lessons of the book, and given me the benefit of his criticisms, which, for the most part, are very encouraging. In issuing this second edition, it has seemed well to add in footnotes the substance of his comments. I have not a personal acquaintance with this most obliging and helpful gentleman, but I hope that he will, as well as Mrs. Whyte, accept this acknowledgment of valuable help as the best return I am able at present to make. I understand that Dr. Mingana's name is one that stands high in rank among philologists and Orientalists. He is a voluminous writer for theological and other journals, and the author of a Syriac Grammar; of two volumes on Syriac Sources; a volume on The Ancient Koran; two volumes on The Odes and Psalms of Solomon; a work on Early Judeo-Christian Documents in the John Rylands Library, and of several other books.
While we in no wise question the authority and inviolability of the original text of the Bible, we hold that the present English translation of Genesis 3:16, "Thy desire shall be to thy husband," is erroneous, and proved incorrect by the ancient versions. Therefore the interpretation of St. Paul's rules regarding the conduct and treatment of women, since based on the erroneous translation, is incorrect.
A few persons will, of course, resign a measure of faith unless the traditional interpretation is left undisturbed. This cannot be helped. We must continually improve in our understanding of God's will, and this necessitates a continual improvement in our interpretation of God's Word. So the question is, --Shall the Church change its present treatment of women, or its interpretation of St. Paul? Its present course of inconsistency, in teaching Paul one way, and treating women in a more honoring way, is mischievous:
(1) The Church itself, thereby, sets an example of defiance of the authority of the Bible.
(2) To explain Paul by apologizing for Paul's faulty rabbinical logic involves the expositor in an attack on the inspiration of the Bible (see Lesson 46).
(3) If women must suffer domestic, legislative and ecclesiastical disabilities because Eve sinned, then must the Church harbor the appalling doctrine that Christ did not atone for all sin, because so long as the Church maintains these disabilities, the inevitable conclusion in the average mind will be the same as Tertullian's,—"God's verdict on the sex still holds good, and the sex's guilt must still hold also."
(4) At no point is faith in the entire Bible being so viciously and successfully attacked today as at the point of the "woman question," and the Church so far attempts no defense here of her children. It assumes that the interests of merely a few ambitious women are involved, whereas the very fundamentals of our faith are at stake.
"Dost thou desire to study to advantage? Consult God more than books, and ask Him humbly to make thee understand what thou readest. Go from time to time to be refreshed at the feet of Christ, under His Cross. Some moments of repose there give fresh vigor and new light: interrupt thy study by short but fervent supplications."
This is a Study Book, yet it has been our hope to make the book equally interesting for mere reading.
Having been planned as a Study Book, paragraphs are to be paid attention to, not pages; it is indexed at the back on this plan. Those who do not know Hebrew and Greek, and yet wish to test its every point, will find much help in doing this in Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible, especially in editions from the seventh onward, because of the valuable Index-Lexicons at the end of the volume, informing the student of the number of times any certain Greek or Hebrew word occurs in the Bible and of all its various translations.
Some years ago, Mrs. Alexander Whyte, wife of the late Principal Whyte of New College, Edinburgh, Scotland, became interested in the Lessons, and appealed to Dr. Rendel Harris for an opinion of them from his point of scholarship, or of some other able critic. Dr. Harris referred Mrs. Whyte to Dr. A. Mingana, Professor of Arabic at Manchester University, England, and Curator of Oriental Manuscripts in the John Rylands Library, which contains a wealth of such matter.
Dr. Mingana has read carefully through the Lessons of the book, and given me the benefit of his criticisms, which, for the most part, are very encouraging. In issuing this second edition, it has seemed well to add in footnotes the substance of his comments. I have not a personal acquaintance with this most obliging and helpful gentleman, but I hope that he will, as well as Mrs. Whyte, accept this acknowledgment of valuable help as the best return I am able at present to make. I understand that Dr. Mingana's name is one that stands high in rank among philologists and Orientalists. He is a voluminous writer for theological and other journals, and the author of a Syriac Grammar; of two volumes on Syriac Sources; a volume on The Ancient Koran; two volumes on The Odes and Psalms of Solomon; a work on Early Judeo-Christian Documents in the John Rylands Library, and of several other books.
While we in no wise question the authority and inviolability of the original text of the Bible, we hold that the present English translation of Genesis 3:16, "Thy desire shall be to thy husband," is erroneous, and proved incorrect by the ancient versions. Therefore the interpretation of St. Paul's rules regarding the conduct and treatment of women, since based on the erroneous translation, is incorrect.
A few persons will, of course, resign a measure of faith unless the traditional interpretation is left undisturbed. This cannot be helped. We must continually improve in our understanding of God's will, and this necessitates a continual improvement in our interpretation of God's Word. So the question is, --Shall the Church change its present treatment of women, or its interpretation of St. Paul? Its present course of inconsistency, in teaching Paul one way, and treating women in a more honoring way, is mischievous:
(1) The Church itself, thereby, sets an example of defiance of the authority of the Bible.
(2) To explain Paul by apologizing for Paul's faulty rabbinical logic involves the expositor in an attack on the inspiration of the Bible (see Lesson 46).
(3) If women must suffer domestic, legislative and ecclesiastical disabilities because Eve sinned, then must the Church harbor the appalling doctrine that Christ did not atone for all sin, because so long as the Church maintains these disabilities, the inevitable conclusion in the average mind will be the same as Tertullian's,—"God's verdict on the sex still holds good, and the sex's guilt must still hold also."
(4) At no point is faith in the entire Bible being so viciously and successfully attacked today as at the point of the "woman question," and the Church so far attempts no defense here of her children. It assumes that the interests of merely a few ambitious women are involved, whereas the very fundamentals of our faith are at stake.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
