Equipoise

Today Isaac and I wrap up our sessions together by discussing the reasons why some things in the different translations of the Bible are different, and why that's not only "okay," but actually good. 

In the podcast episode, I promised a link to some cool stuff. I have no idea what I had in mind at that point in time, so I figure I'll post a link to the Textual Confidence Collective's youtube playlist. It'll do you some good; of this I'm quite certain.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLq1Aq0ucgkPC8DHPKsXWl8zl3iAG64qyV

We continue our conversation with Isaac Thibodeau in this episode, in which we discuss the Critical vs. Majority text positions.

In today's episode, I interview Isaac Thibodeau and learn more about how we got our Bibles -- specifically, our New Testaments. We also touch on canonicity, but mainly stay in the lane of Biblical copying and transmission.

In this episode, I whine that everyone seems to be beating me to the punch on this topic all of the sudden. I think I'll suspend reality and cope by imagining that I'm a trendsetter and it's all because of me.

Anyhow, here's the links I promised in the episode:

The article by Tim Berg, "Seven Common Misconceptions..." https://textandcanon.org/misconceptions-about-the-king-james-bible/

The patent for the King James translation: https://www.cambridge.org/us/bibles/about/rights-and-permissions/rights-and-permissions-kjv

In this episode, I move to do the following: 

1. Dismantle the erroneous "KJV was written on a 5th-grade reading level" narrative

2. Briefly demonstrate a couple of other reasons why we would benefit from a newer translation of the Bible.

ALSO: Here's the link to Mark Ward's excellent book on the King James Bible -- note: same as I, he doesn't advocate for doing away with the King James Version. This helpful, read-it-in-two-hours-but-meditate-on-it-for-years kind of book will help you arrive at a balanced perspective on this topic, no matter what your position is on this issue. 

https://lexhampress.com/product/144705/authorized-the-use-and-misuse-of-the-king-james-bible

Today, I examine the landscape; that is, I take a look at the different views within the KJVO movement and limit my scope to a couple of them. 

Today I kick off our miniseries about Bible Translation, or, more specifically, the King James Only Controversy. I hope that this series will be a blessing to you and that you will commit to listening to it all the way to the end. Ten minutes a week for about twelve weeks, if all goes according to plan. 

Just a quick update before my Bible Translation Miniseries begins next week.

BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE, you have got to check out this link. I didn't spot it until after writing my script, and it's probably a good thing that I didn't, or this would have morphed into a seven-episode series: https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/proabortion-slogans-and-how-to-handle-them-9553

CUTTING ROOM FLOOR:

Another argument states that babies aren’t actually living people with human rights because they’re not “viable.” This one is weak. Babies aren’t even “viable” long after they’re born! Those with severe cerebral palsy or advanced muscular dystrophy aren’t “viable” for their whole lives! On the topic, many state that since the baby isn’t sentient until a certain amount of weeks, it’s morally acceptable to dismember or otherwise terminate the baby’s life until it is sentient and can tell what’s going on and/or feel pain. Barring the notion that people in comas are also not sentient, it nonetheless remains morally unacceptable due to the fact that babies are indeed sentient even as early as 12 weeks and can feel pain as early as 8 weeks. 

Many (such as popular pro-abortion activist Katha Pollitt) say that although modern translations of Exodus 21:22–23 confer a financial penalty for an early delivery of a child due to abuse at the hands of an offender (see this link for more on that: https://www.christianity.com/wiki/christian-life/the-bible-say-about-abortion.html), Katha and many, many others like her hold that the earliest Rabbinical traditions state that there was a fine for miscarriage, not pre-term birth, thus indicating that since the death penalty wasn’t carried out for the miscarriage, the unborn child was seen as less than human. Well, that would be all well and good, except for these pesky little things called historical documents.

The famed historian Josephus, writing in the very first century (two thousand years ago), was fully aware that the Torah forbade abortions and stated clearly as much in his writings. Another early source which contradicts this is a first-century document called the Didache, which was a sort of church instruction manual written by Christians who knew their Torah inside and out. In it, it states “thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill them when born.” Furthermore, the Letter of Barnabas, a second-century work, states “You shall not abort a child nor, again, commit infanticide.” Oh, and there’s no word for “fetus” in the Bible because the Greek word “brephos” is used in the Bible to refer to both an unborn child and an infant. There’s no distinction, and such a distinction is actually quite novel.

So tell me again how opposition to abortion is some new idea, Miss Pollitt?

In 2014, the same lady went on record as saying the following: “[Jewish tradition] does not have the concept of the personhood of the fetus (much less the embryo or fertilized egg). In Jewish law, you become a person when you draw your first breath.” So let’s address that one, too.

First, most arguments in this realm enter weird territory pretty quick, going so far as to include Ezekiel’s vision in the valley of dry bones or Adam having received the breath of life as some sort of prescriptive argument for when life begins. It’s wildly outlandish. But for what it’s worth, it’s really popular to make the claim that life doesn’t begin until the first breath. But is this what the Bible teaches? No. Here’s a link for more on this: https://www.str.org/w/does-bible-teach-life-begins-first-breath.

Source on statistics of reasons for abortions: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

Lastly, here's a really, really cool page that very fairly shows arguments for and against abortion: https://abortion.procon.org/

Yes, it's a riff on the show, "Charles in Charge." Yes, I do a song parody at the end. 

But yes, I do hope there's helpful content in this episode somewhere. :)