Bible scholar writes book pointing out that what you think the Bible says, it not at all what it says.

Bible scholar Dr. Joel M. Hoffman has written a new book entitled "The Bible Doesn't Say That: 40 Biblical Mistranslations, Misconceptions, and Other Misunderstandings" which reveals that what many people take as gospel, is anything but.

Here are a few examp0les courtesy of Chron:  

The Bible Doesn't Call Homosexuality A Sin 

Only three biblical passages address homosexuality directly. And while they frown on some male homosexual behavior, they do not condemn all of homosexuality, and they do not call it a sin. 

So it's a double mistake to say that "the Bible calls homosexuality a sin." 

The Ten Commandments Don't Prohibit Coveting 

The word "covet" in "thou shalt not covet" is a translation mistake. The original Hebrew verb here, CHAMAD, means "to take," a fact we learn by looking at how the word is used in context is that some things are not just illegal but also immoral. 

The mistranslation "thou shalt not covet" wrongly suggests that feelings might be immoral, while the original text only addresses actions. 

The Bible Doesn't Contradict Evolution 

Some modern critics of the Bible claim that you can't believe the Bible if you think evolution is right, and some modern Bible readers say that you can't believe evolution if you think the Bible is right. 

Both groups have misunderstood the Bible. What they don't grasp is that most of the stories in Genesis were not meant to be history. 

One of the ways we know is that there are, in fact, two creation stories --- one in which Eve is created from Adam's rib, the other in which Adam and Eve are created at the same time. They can't both be historically accurate, and they were not intended to be. 

Rather, evolution is a scientific truth and the creation stories in the Bible are religious truths. And sometimes "believing the Bible" means believing that a story in it didn't happen. 

"Biblical Marriage" Lets Men Marry More Than One Wife 

"Biblical marriage" is a hot topic, but even a quick look at biblical marriage shows that it's not what most people think. 

According to both the Old Testament and the New Testament, most men are allowed to have lots of wives at once -- the exceptions being kings (who according to Deuteronomy 17 can only have a few wives) and some religious leaders (who according to 1 Timothy can only have one). 

Biblical marriage does not have be between only one man and one woman. 

The Bible Doesn't Forbid Abortion 

There's one direct mention of losing a fetus in the Bible, and that's in Exodus 21. The Hebrew isn't entirely clear, but the question there seems to be: What happens if a man accidentally causes a woman's miscarriage? 

The normal eye-for-an-eye, tooth-for-a-tooth rule won't work, because the man doesn't have a fetus to match the woman's lost fetus. 

The answer is that the man has to pay a fine. Because a fine is never the penalty for murder, we learn that, according to the Bible, abortion is not murder. Other than that, the Bible offers no guidance about abortion. 

There is of course quite a lot more, but you get the gist.

One of my go to rules for understanding the Bible is to never ask for clarification from priests, ministers, nuns, or even Christians.

Most of them are salespeople trying to sell a product. They only care about a truth that helps them to achieve that goal, not actual truth itself.

It is hard to imagine that a book which has had such incredible impact on humanity is so poorly understood by the majority of humans.

But then again, we don't have to imagine it do we?

Well it's Christmas, and this IS the Immoral Minority, so let's stick a pin in the virgin birth story shall we?

Now I am sure that I have already covered this in the past, but I recently stumbled across an interview on Raw Story of Dr. Tony Nugent, scholar of world religions, and a symbologist.

Oh, and he is also an ordained  Presbyterian minister.

And I really liked his no BS explanation for why so many ignoramuses stick giant Nativity scenes on their lawns at Christmas.

On why we think Mary was a virgin:

The familiar Christmas story, including the virgin conception and birth of Jesus, is found in the gospels of Matthew and Luke. Scholars have pointed out that these stories are somewhat disconnected from other parts of these Gospels and the rest of the New Testament. In fact, by the time he is a young boy in the temple, Jesus’s parents seem to have forgotten the virgin birth. They act surprised by his odd behavior. There is never any other mention in the New Testament of these incredible events! These stories seem to be an afterthought, written later than the rest of the gospels that contain them. To make matters more interesting, the stories themselves have inconsistencies and ambiguities – contradictory genealogies, for example. Our Christmas story (singular) is actually a composite. 

Or consider the idea that Mary is a virgin. The Greek writer of Matthew quotes Isaiah as saying: “a parthenos shall conceive and bear a child.” The Hebrew word in Isaiah is “almah,” which means simply “young woman.” But the Greek word parthenos can mean either a virgin or a young woman, and it got translated as “virgin.” Modern Bible translations have corrected this, but it is a central part of the Christmas story.

You know for the "inerrant word of God" this book is certainly full of historical inaccuracies, and mistranslations. 

So did early Christians believe in the virgin birth?

Jewish Christians, the first Christians, didn’t believe in the virgin birth. They believed that Joseph was the biological father of Jesus. Part of their Christology was “adoptionism”–they thought Jesus was adopted as the unique son of God at some time later in life. There were disagreements about when – Mark suggests the baptism, Paul suggests the resurrection. 

Over time, gentile Christianity replaced Jewish Christianity. There were Jewish-Roman Wars. The Jewish Christians were marginalized and oppressed. The Gentile branch became dominant. Eventually we get the gospel of John which pushes the sonship of Jesus back to the beginning of time. This writer is at the other end of the spectrum from the Jewish Christians.

So apparently all of the relatively rational early Christians were told to shut up, and that left the less than rational ones to interpret the story of Jesus. Well that figures.

So just how should we view stories in the Bible? 

We need to be able to appreciate these stories as myths, rather than literal histories. When you understand where they come from, then you can understand their spiritual significance for the writers and for us.

Well good then I have been doing it right since I was just a boy.

I apologize if this interferes with your ability to enjoy the holidays. But take heart!

I mean sure the Biblical stories about Jesus are complete horse pucky, but at least we know Santa Claus is real. Right?

Right?

Religious scholar Reza Aslan slams televangelist Joel Osteen and the Christian prosperity movement.

Courtesy of Raw Story: 

During a question and answer session, the University of California at Riverside professor was asked about the portrayal of Jesus in movies. 

“I love all fictional presentations of Jesus. I think they are fantastic, whether it is the Last Temptation of Christ or The Passion — both of which are fiction. But — sorry about that, did I break that to you? — but again for me what is fascinating about those is it is just a representation of what I have been talking about all along, which is the incredible malleability of the Christ story, the way that it can become whatever you want it to become.” 

Aslan said his favorite representation of Jesus was from the 1970 rock opera Jesus Christ Superstar, and then pivoted to the issue of the prosperity gospel. 

“The fastest growing Protestant movement in North America is this movement that is referred to as the prosperity gospel,” he said. “This is the gospel preached by people like Joel Osteen and T.D. Jakes — and when I say people, I mean charlatans. The argument of the prosperity gospel, if I can put it flippantly, is that Jesus wants you to drive a Bentley. That is basically what the argument is. That what Jesus wants for you is material prosperity, and that if you literally give, you will literally be given tenfold. That’s not a metaphor, as it is in most churches. It is literal. You give me $10 and Jesus will give you $100.” 

“This is as profoundly an unscriptural interpretation of Jesus that exists,” Aslan remarked. “I mean, if there is one thing that is just so clear cut and just not open to interpretation at all of any kind when it comes to Jesus’s message, it is his condemnation of wealth.” 

“And yet, not only does this version of Christianity exist, as I say, it is honestly the fastest growing version of Protestant evangelical Christianity in North America. That’s because Jesus can be whatever you want him to be, and the Christian message can be whatever you want it to be.”

I have been saying this for years.

I actually find many of the things attributed to Jesus to be quite admirable, but modern Christianity has drifted so far from what he supposedly taught that it bears virtually no resemblance to anything that could have possibly been inspired by his words.

So today, like Aslan says, the Christian message can be whatever those who claim to represent his teachings want it to be.

And sadly they so much more often focused on what using his name can do for them, than in what sharing his teaching can do for others. 

This is not to suggest that he was a demigod, or that he even existed, but there are things of value in the words that they claim he spoke. And the value should not be minimized by reducing it to mere dollars and cents.

Especially when the Gospels specifically condemn that kind of thinking out of hand. 

Author, and religious scholar, Reza Aslan says that "Self-styled 'defenders of Christianity,' like Palin and Limbaugh, peddle a profoundly unhistorical view of Jesus."

Courtesy of the Washington Post:  

Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin are starting to sour on the new pope. 

In response to Pope Francis’ first Apostolic Exhortation, in which the pontiff denounced “trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world,” these two paragons of the far right – both of whom regularly invoke the teachings of Jesus to bolster their own political views – have suddenly turned their backs on the man whose actual job description is to speak for Jesus. 

Sarah Palin complained that Pope Francis sounded “kind of liberal” in his statements decrying the growing global income equality between the rich and the poor (she has since apologized). 

Rush Limbaugh went one step further. “This is just pure Marxism coming out of the mouth of the pope,” he harrumphed into his giant microphone. 

Limbaugh, in his trademarked conspiratorial style, speculated that the pope’s tirade against “widespread corruption and self-serving tax evasion” must have been forced upon him by somebody else. “Somebody has either written this for [the pope] or gotten to him,” he said. 

Limbaugh is right. Somebody did get to Pope Francis. It was Jesus. 

Self-styled “defenders of Christianity,” like Palin and Limbaugh, peddle a profoundly unhistorical view of Jesus. Indeed, if you listened to those on the far right you would think that all Jesus ever spoke about was guns and gays.

Aslan then goes onto point out just how different the Jesus of the Bible is from the conservative version that is bandied about by the Right Wing.

While modern Christianity has tried to spiritualize this message of Jesus, transforming his revolutionary social teachings into abstract ethical principles, it is impossible to overlook the unflinching condemnation of the wealthy and powerful that permeate Jesus’ teachings. 

“How hard it will be for the wealthy to enter the Kingdom of God!” (Mark 10:23). 

As one can imagine, such a radical vision of the world would have been both profoundly appealing for those at the bottom rungs of Jesus’ society, and incredibly threatening for those at the top. The fact is not much has changed in two thousand years, as Palin and Limbaugh have proven. 

Yet if these “culture warriors” who so often claim to speak for Jesus actually understood what Jesus stood for, they would not be so eager to claim his ideas for their own. In fact, they’d probably call him a Marxist.

I do not always agree with Reza Aslan, but on this topic he is quite correct. And the truly pitiful thing is how Christianity, on its face a religion of acceptance and social justice, was so easily hijacked by those who used it as an excuse to amass great wealth and power and then use it to subjugate those who they considered dangerous to their ambitions or unworthy of their charity.

And who does THAT remind you of?

Fox News interviewer cannot get over the fact that a Religious Scholar has written a book about Jesus while being a Muslim.

This is the worst interview ever!

I mean seriously, what a disrespectful bitch!

No matter how many times the author reminds this woman that he is an academic scholar approaching the subject from what he believes to be a factual basis, she simply CANNOT see past the fact that he is a Muslim.

She is incredibly aggressive and seems determined to undermine his book based solely on his religious affiliation and NEVER bothers to address the content of his writing.

It should be noted that Reza Aslan has written numerous books on religion, and most notably came under fire for writing a book (No God but God) that took Islamic fundamentalists and zealots to task for misunderstanding and misrepresenting the teachings of the Quran.

I have seen interviews with Aslan numerous times, and he has always seemed a fairly intelligent and reasonable fellow. Though of course I disagree with some of his viewpoints, I cannot refute that his books are well researched and his opinions well thought out.

And besides just knowing how pissed off the Religious Right and the Islamophobes are over this book is reason enough to want to read it for myself.