Monday, December 29, 2008
As the monks were carrying the aged monk into the monastery, Abuna Elia saw the American Benedictine monk and Catholic priest, Mark Gruber, who was staying with the monks to conduct a year-long anthropological study. At the gate of the monastery, the aged monk turned to Fr. Gruber and said, "You are a Roman... You will want to see me; you will want to have some opportunity to talk with me."
Fr. Gruber reponded, "Yes, Abuna. I would be very happy to see you."
This fateful encounter led to numerous conversations between Abuna Elia and Fr. Gruber, and some of Abuna Elia's thoughts are presented in Fr. Gruber's books: Journey Back to Eden and Sacrifice in the Desert (both on Orbis Books).
In discussing with Fr. Gruber Abuna Elia's understanding of Abraham's relationship to Sarah and Keturah, Fr. Gruber explains, "Abuna Elia was keen on preserving a sense of the unique character of Sarah, the 'princess' whose personality had no peerage for Abraham. The monogamy he bore to her was a reflex of the monotheism to which his faithfulness to Sarah predisposed him.
So for Keturah Abuna Elia supplied a commentary of remarkably modern ringing vintage: Keturah was the apical maternal ancestor of a Semitic people 'grandmothered' into Hebrew stock at the time after Joshua. They eventually embraced monotheism and so posthumously Abraham embraced them by the marital reference to her in Genesis. Analogously Abuna Elia observed that the dozen or so ethnic pilgrimage groups in Jerusalem recorded by St. Luke in the Pentecost narrative of the Acts of the Apostles are so included to give a kind of map of Christian missionary expansion when the Acts were written; as if they too were there at the Church’s birthday because they too shared the same Spirit… This is part of the economy of grace whereby Jews today share the Passover Night of Moses or Christians are present in the Upper Room, Calvary, the Empty Tomb and at the Ascension’s Trinitarian Embrace when they receive Communion.
Abuna Elia also observed that if we take the marriage to Keturah on literal face value we have the oddity of trivializing the conception of Isaac regarded as so marvelous for Abraham’s (and Sarah’s) advanced age… 'After… my husband is so old, shall I have with him the pleasures of marriage?' (Gen. 19). But the children accorded to Abraham almost casually and offhandedly are born many years after Isaac without any sense of wonder noted. Indeed, a certain Keturah may well have received Abraham after the disaster at Moriah and she may be the ancestor of whom these peoples are descendents so named in Genesis. But their inclusion into the paternity of Abraham owes to her or her descendents accepting the seed of his faith rather than his natural procreative powers. Genesis is a book of the Table of the Nations where apical ancestry is a crucial element… And by faith and faith’s acceptance Genesis previews for us how Abraham becomes a father of many nations.
Kinship and national formation through ancestry re-interpretation is rather lost on the atomized citizenry of contemporary western folk. But Egyptians (Hamites) and Semites retain a taste for this kind of meditation."
There is difficulty in reconciling the apical view of Keturah and Sarah with the kinship pattern revealed in Genesis in which the chiefs had two wives simultaneously. Genesis reveals a distinctive kinship pattern which, by its numerical symbolism, speaks of the Kingdom of God. Just as it took two wives in separate places to establish a kingdom, so the Kingdom of God is comprised of two groups: those who share the benefits of the Pleromic Blood before Christ's Incarnation and those who share those benefits in the dispensation of His appearing. The bridge between these two groups is the unified testimony of the three witnesses: the blood (represented by the Priest Simeon), the water (represented by the Baptizer John) and the Spirit (represented by the Prophetess Anna).
That Abraham had two wives and seven sons does not cloud the miracle of Sarah's conception in her barren years. Further, to focus narrowly on the miracle of Isaac's birth as if he had no brothers and sisters is to lose sight of the larger picture of how God built for Abraham a kingdom, raising this youngest son to the position of priority (as God did with Joseph and David, and as happened with Jesus as a young boy instructing his elders in the Temple.)
Abuna Elia's reflections on the Genesis narratives lift up a theological point or teach a spiritual lesson. They are midrash of a Coptic flavor. Midrash is beneficial only to the degree that it stays close to the biblical text. Problems arise when interpretation is layered on interpretation so that meaning strays rather far from the details of the text. This is when midrash becomes tangential to the overall picture of Genesis. (The Noahide interpretation of Nimrod is a perfect example.)
Most midrashim are based on the teachings of the Tannaim and can therefore be dated to between 0 and 200 A.D. This means that the Rabbis were interpreting the Hebrew Bible at the same time that the early Church Fathers were expounding on the same Bible from a Christian perspective. The divergence of interpretation concerning messianic passages is explained by the polemic of those centuries.
As western Bible commentators came to rely more on Jewish interpretation and became less acquainted with the Patristic writings, midrashic notions influenced Christian interpretation. This seems to be changing as more commentators return to the text for closer observation.
Fr. Mark Gruber himself explored the difference between layers of midrash and close observation in his experiment involving an ostrich egg which hung between the ceiling oil lamps in the monastery chapel. He asked about the significance of the egg and was given several different interpretations. One monk said that the egg was there to remind monks to keep their spiritual eyes fixed on God. Another explained that the ostrich warms its egg by gazing on it and that this reminds us that God’s gaze is always on us. While sitting in the chapel one night, Fr. Gruber observed the hidden meaning of the egg: “I saw a scrawny desert rat crawling along a groove in the wall, creeping very slowly and with great stealth. It proceeded to slide down the wire till it came to the egg. However, when it tried to navigate the large smooth surface, it couldn’t get a grip. Its little claws had been so tightly closed around the wire that when it came to the egg, it couldn’t open them wide enough to hold onto it. So it slipped off the egg and fell to the ground. The rat seemed to be injured by the fall. It scurried away… So it turns out that the eggs actually have a practical purpose. They keep the rats away from the lamps, away from the oil reserve which they might otherwise try to drink, desert rats being omnivorous” (p. 171).
This story illustrates the importance of observation of details in situ. In other words, we must conform our understanding to the fine details rather than ignore details that don't fit our interpretation.
Fr. Gruber reports that Abuna Elia still lives and has achieved a very ripe age. He tells me that "these monks have been known to live a long time."
Monday, December 22, 2008
|Some of these Nok figurines are likely teraphim|
The word teraphim is usually rendered "images" or "idols" but the word actually means the things pertaining to terah. Terah is an ancient word meaning priest. Abraham's father was called Terah, though this is likely a title, not a proper name. This is the case with other Biblical persons such as Lamech and Enoch.
1 Samuel 19:13 reports that "Michal took the teraphim and laid it on the bed, and put a quilt of goats' hair at its head, and covered it with clothes." It is not certain here if this refers to sacred images or simply to figurines that she hoped would serve as a decoy. However, it is clear that this cannot refer to small Horite ancestor figurines such as Rachel was able to hide under a saddle.
The teraphim which Rachel hid from Laban were small clay figurines that represented Rachel and Jacob's common ancestor, the great Horite ruler-priest Terah. There would have been at least 2 figurines, 1 male and 1 female. Possibly there were 3 figurines: 1 male (representing Terah) and 2 females (representing Terah's wives). The set of three would have had great value as they represented Terah's kingdom.
It isn't clear to which Terah these images pertained. Did they pertain to Abraham's father and Canaanite mother, or to Abraham's great grandfather and his wives? Given the urgency of Rachel's actions, these figurines must have had great significance. That suggests that they did not represent Abraham's father, who inherited a kingdom, but his kingdom-building great grandfather.
Terah the Younger's mother married Nahor and named her first-born son after her father, Terah the Elder. (For more on this see Bride's Naming Prerogative.) This was the naming practice of the cousin or niece bride and indicated to whose throne her first-born son would ascend. The first-born son of the patrilineal cousin/niece ascended to the throne of his maternal grandfather.
In Abraham's Afro-Asiatic culture great ancestor chiefs would be regarded as having as real a presence as living persons. They would have been guarded by Terah's clan and passed from generation to generation through the mother's line. The custom is traced to West Central African and there is much physical and anthropological evidence for the practice.
The Sao culture in the Chari Valley of Cameroon produced elaborate human figure sculptures, representing deified ancestors. Carbon-14 dates for the Sao figurines date from the 5th century BC to the 18th century AD.
Small figurines of fired clay dating to the 6th century BC were excavated at Daima near Lake Chad, Noah's homeland. The figurines were simple animal figures in clay, produced by a population of Neolithic herdsmen. The Daima style is different from that more sophisticated Nok figurines, farther to the west. Nok was a fully Iron Age Culture, producing large, hollow sculptures in well-fired pottery, some of the stylistic features of which imply still earlier prototypes. Nok is the African equivalent of the Hebrew name Enoch. Cain and his brother Seth married Nokite brides.
In traditional African societies ancestors are honored by family and community in the homes and at shrines. These places hold relics of the ancestors. Contact with the relics is believed to stimulate awareness of the ancestors’ presence and produce trances whereby the living communicate with the dead.
The Yoruba of Nigeria believe that the Creator God "Olurun" is served by a pantheon of lesser deities called "Orisha". Figurines of honored orisha are guarded by families and clans. Voodoo practices of the Caribbean come from this west African religion. In voodoo ritual, a relic of hair, nail clippings or an item of clothing must be used to identify the figurine with a living person.
Clay figurines made with relics from an ancestor are carefully guarded by their families. These are passed from generation to generation, often through the mother's line as in the case of the Teraphim mentioned in Genesis 31. Rachel took them from Laban because it would have been through the mother's line that these were to be passed along. Laban had possession of them, but as Jacob's mother was a direct descendent of Terah, the Teraphim more rightfully belonged with Jacob's house.
The Teraphim were likely clay figurines with perforations around the top of the head. The hair of the ancestor Terah would have been woven through these holes. Such perforated figurines, dating to as late as the time of King David, have been excavated in Israel and are preserved among Israel's antiquities.
Related reading: The Afro-Asiatic Dominion; The Nile-Japan Ainu Connection
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Who was Abraham’s mother? Why is she nameless, given that Jewish identity is traced through the mother? Given Abraham’s prominence in Scripture, it seems odd that his mother should not be named or her ancestry more precisely identified.
The BabylonianTalmud says that "Terah took a wife and her name was Amsalai, the daughter of Karnevo; and the wife of Terah conceived and bare him a son in those days." Jasher 7:50 This connects her to the Horite caste who maintained a shrine as Karnak on the Nile. It may also explain why she isn't named in Genesis. It was problematic to the rabbis that Abraham's mother was probably the daughter of a Horite priest. We shouldn't be surprised by this. It is a key trait of the Horite marriage and ascendency pattern that Horite men only married the daughters of Horite priests.
Analysis of the kinship pattern of Abraham’s people reveals that her father was Nahor the Elder. She married Terah and named their first-born son Nahor after her father. This means that Nahor was older than Abraham and explains why Nahor inherited Terah's terrritory.
Abraham’s mother and father were the children of Nahor by different wives. Both mothers were daughters of Terah the Elder who was likely a Horite. It may have been during his lifetime that the clans parted ways, some leaving Terah in Canaan (Ex. 33:28-29) for Mesopotamia.
Since both of Nahor’s wives were daughters of Terah the Elder, it is evident that Nahor married sisters who were his cousins. We find this pattern with Jacob and his wives Rachel and Leah. It appears that Terah sought his wives from among his mother’s people, just as Jacob did.
Where would Terah have gone to acquire his wives? He would have gone to his mother's people, to the clan of Terah in the land of Canaan. He would have gone to his Horite kin who lived between Mt. Hor near Petra and Mt. Hor near Sela. This is an important piece of information because it links Abraham’s father to the land of Canaan and identifies him as a Horite. Terah was named after his maternal grandfather Terah the Horite. This means that Abraham's mother was from Canaan.
The difficulty in tracing her line is due to the hidden third, Terah the Elder, Abraham's great grandfather. He represents the third of three earlier patriarchs: Nahor, Haran and Terah. From these three Afro-Asiatic chiefs come the later Patriarchs: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
The recurrence of 3 sons is a theme under the surface of Genesis and must be mined. The number 3 represents unity so seeing the bigger picture of Abraham's people requires looking for all 3 sons, one of which is usually hidden. The “Hidden Son” is a Messianic message that runs throughout the Bible. The Hidden Son is now revealed in the divine Person of Jesus Christ and He is shown to be the perfect fulfillment of all Messianic expectations and promises.
We note the persistence of the theme of 3 sons in these listings:
Gen. 4 - Cain, Abel, Seth
Gen. 4 - Jubal, Jabal, Tubal
Gen. 7 - Ham, Shem, Japheth
Gen. 11 - Haran, Nahor, Abraham
Exploring the identity of Abraham’s mother reveals another triad:
Terah the Elder, Joktan the Elder, and Nahor the Elder. These were great Afro-Asiatic chiefs whose territories were probably contiguous.
Abraham’s mother was a daughter of Terah the Elder and likely the sister of Keturah’s mother. (Keturah was Abraham's cousin bride.) If so, we can say that Terah the Elder and Joktan the Elder (Keturah's father) married sisters. We have seen this pattern before. Cain and his brother Seth married sisters, the noble daughters of an African chief named Nok.
The Horites appear to have been a confederation of numerous clans including the House of Sheba and the House of Joktan. They were a caste of ruler-priests as is evidenced by their names.
Horite Names and Roots
|Ancient Egyptian priest|
“While still in Chaldea, Nimrod demanded that Abram acknowledge him as a god. When Abram refused, he was thrown into a fiery furnace. His brother, Haran, had thought to side with Abram if he survived, but if not, with Nimrod. When Abram came out of the furnace alive, he declared that Abram’s belief in the One Gd was true. Haran, however, did not survive the furnace.”
In reality, Nimrod was a Kushite kingdom builder (Gen. 10:8). Following the pattern of his ruler-priest ancestors, he would have had two wives. One was likely established in Ninevah and the other in Calah. One wife would have been Nimrod's half-sister and the other would have been his patrilineal parallel cousin. This is the same marriage pattern seen with Abraham and with Moses.
Ancient Kush encompassed Ethiopia and eastern Sudan, essentially the entire region of the Upper Nile Valley. The Kushites were great kingdom builders during the height of the Afro-Asiatic Dominion. Nimrod, is specifically mentioned as having a territory that ranged between Ninevah and Calah. He was the son of Kush.
Friday, December 19, 2008
In considering human relations, we observe that love stimulates creative attitudes and actions. I see this in my students. Those reared in supportive homes tend to approach life with gusto and inventiveness. Some who have little nurture at home find their salvation in creativity. I can think of several students who failed their core subjects but flourished in art class or drama.
Love is generative and when the creator destroys, it is to generate anew. I think of my youngest daughter. She struggled in school, but achieved remarkable acomplishments in art and drama. Her art teacher often found my daughter starting over, crushing the clay, shredding the paper, sweeping the canvas clean in an effort to perfect the work. Is God doing this in creation? Is God doing this is our lives?
Here is John Calvin's view:
Therefore, God created all men in love, not in hatred." And again, " No beast is so cruel (to say nothing of man) that it would desire to create its young to misery. How much less, then, shall such a desire be found in God! Would not God in such a case of creation be less kind and merciful than the wolf which He has created? " Christ argues in this way: " If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall God? " (Matt. vii. 11.) It is just thus that your adversaries argue. They say, If Calvin, though an evil man, yet would not wish to beget a child unto misery, how much less shall God desire to do so? These and like arguments your opponents bring forward with respect to nature.
But with reference to the Scripture they reason thus: God saw that " all things " which He had made were " very good." Such therefore was man, whom also He had made " very good." But what if God created him to destruction? If such be the case, God created that which " was very good " to destruction and perdition, and therefore He must love to destroy! But that is a thing impious, even in thought. And again, they argue: God created one man and placed him in Paradise, which is a life of happiness. Therefore God created all men for a happy life, for all men were created in the one man. And if all men fell in Adam, it follows that all men stood in Adam, and also in the very condition in which Adam stood. And further, God says, " I would not the death of a sinner;" and again, it is written that God " willeth not that any should perish, but that all men should come to the knowledge of the truth " ( 1 Tim. ii. 4). Farther, if God created the greatest part of the world to perdition, it follows that His anger is greater than His mercy, and it consequently follows also that His anger is strewn " unto the third and fourth generation." Whereas, " it is evident, on the contrary, that His mercy extends " even unto the thousandth generation ! "
Source: Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics
For more on the theme of Divine Love, go here.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
|This tribal group living in the Andaman Islands (India) migrated from East Africa. Their ancestors are believed to have migrated from Africa between 50,000 and 70,000 years ago. Another Kushite migration took place later. See Clyde A. Winters' The Kushite Spread of Haplogroup R1*-M173 from Africa to Eurasia, here: http://maxwellsci.com/print/crjbs/v2-294-299.pd Current Research Journal of Biological Sciences 2(5): 294-299, 2010 ISSN: 2041-0778 © Maxwell Scientific Organization, 2010|
Before Alexander the Great there was Nimrod or Sargon the Great! That's what Genesis tells us.
Nimrod, "a mighty hunter before the Lord" was the son of Kush, acccording to Genesis 10:8. The term "mighty hunter" is related to the Hausa term for lead hunter - sarkin maharba. The name Nim-rwd tells us about the extent of his rule. It means "waters of the earth" and reflects the ancient Afro-Asiatic riverine civilization which I have termed "the Afro-Asiatic Dominion." It was indeed as expansive as Nimrod's name suggests. Nimrod does not mean "we will rebel" as the rabbis would have us believe.
Nimrod's brother was Ramah who assumed rule over his father's territory in Arabia (the area of Dedan-Ramah). Nimrod left Kush's territory for the Tigrus-Euphrates River Valley where he established his kingdom and built cities. The ruling lines of Ramah and Nimrod continued to intermarry, following the pattern of the ruler-priests, but the geographical distance was to be felt in the way that Arabic (Dedan-Ramah) and Aramaic (Haran-Ur) developed.
We first meet Abraham in the region of Haran and Ur because he is a descendant of Nimrod.
Dr. Lalji Singh's samples from 46 Onge in India? His research reveals that this tribal group living at the eastern edge of the Bay of Bengal came originally from Africa.
Kush is an older name for the region that extended from Egypt, Sudan, Nubia to the Horn of Africa and along the eastern side of the Red Sea. The oldest known agricultural tradition in Africa is traced to this region and dates to about 3800 B.C.
Nimrod's cultural context was more African than Mesopotamian/Asiatic. Bible commentators assign Nimrod to a Mesopotamian cultural context because they generally do not recognize that Abraham's people were ethnically Kushite and spoke languages much older than Hebrew. They argue that the name Nimrod comes from the Semitic root מרד (MRD) meaning "to rebel". Jeff Benner maintains that the ancient Semitic root MRD (marad) is the origin of our words MaRauDer and MuRDer. However, the name is more closely related to the Hausa word for hunter, which is maharba (MRB). Hausa is in the same language family as Egyptian, Arabic, Hebrew and the Akkadian of Nimrod's empire. This take on the name stresses the hunter-warrior nature of this great kingdom builder. Compare the word nahshirkan (hunter) which appears in the Targum with the Hausa word for lead hunter sarkin maharba. But the actual name Nim-rwd means "Waters of the Earth." It expresses the idea of universal rule such as is ascribed to God in Psalm 104.
Nimrod's cultural context is Afro-Asiatic and he is connected to the Mesopotamian city of Calah (Akkadian 'Kalhu'). This was the northern point of his territory, consistent with the practice of Afro-Asiatic chiefs who established territories on a north-south axis from the Atlantic coast of modern Nigeria all the way to India. Nimrod apparently left a legacy in Mesopotamia where there were 2 major rivers: the Tigris and the Euphrates.
Afro-Asiatic chiefs controlled the waterways and established their settlements on a north-south axis. Nimrod's territory extended along the Tigris River between Calah and probably Ashur. (Likewise, Cain's territory extended between Kano and Nok, Terah's between Ur and Haran, and Abraham's between Hebron and Beersheba.)
Nimrod may not be the true name of this builder of cities (Gen. 10:8-11), but there is sufficient reason to believe that he did live. Calah on the Tigris River is the present city of Nimrud. There also is a city southwest of Babylon named Birs Nimrwd. Nimrwd's name appears on tablets found in Palestine also. In 1876, George Smith wrote that, "Nearly thirteen hundred years before the Christian era, one of the Egyptian poems likens a hero to the Assyrian chief, Kazartu, a great hunter...and it has already been suggested that the reference here is to the fame of Nimrod. A little later in the period BC 1100 to 800, we have in Egypt many persons named after Nimrod, showing a knowledge of the mighty hunter there." (Chaldean Genesis p. 313)
Actually, the words nim and rwd have an Egyptian-Kushite origin. A great Kushite ruler Nim-lot controlled the waterways between Ar-vad on the Mediterranean and Sidon on the Red Sea. Abraham's nephew, Lot, was kin to the great Nimlot, as is attested by Deuteronomy 2:9 where we read that God gave Ar to Lot's decendants the Moabites. The ancient 3-clan confederation of Ar included the island kingdom of Arvad and the Arkites (Gen. 10:15-18). The name Ar is frequently found in the Bible in reference to important biblical figures and places: Wadi Ar-nun (originally Ar-nxn, meaning Ar of Onn); Ar-abah, Ar-abia; Ar-am; Ar-pachshad, Ar-amaic; Ar-sames, the satrap, Arod and Areli.
Nimrod was apparently a sent-away son because his brother Ramah inherited Kush's territory in southern Canaan, northern Arabia. Other sent-away sons who became great were Kain, Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses and David.
Related reading: Who were the Kushites?; Abraham's Nephews and Niece; Peleg: Time of Division; The Migration of Abraham's Ancestors
Saturday, December 13, 2008
What would we do without Gene Robinson? He is the bellwether of the liberal agenda. Like God himself, if he did not exist it would be necessary to invent him.
Long ago, when women's ordination was no more than an idea in the mind of Christian Howard, many of us were warning that gay marriages and gay bishops were the logical corollaries. Of course we were ridiculed. The issues were discrete and distinct, it was said. No connection between them could reasonably be posited. Evangelicals in favour of women's ordination were especially adamant on the subject. I recall one particular Archdeacon...but it would be churlish to mock the retired.
Now Gene (bless him!) has come forward with a belated vindication of all those fears - as if the progress of the agenda were not now plain for all to see. Gene was addressing a conference of gay American Roman Catholic priests (like diligent Pharisees, revisionist liberals will encompass sea and land to make one proselyte, and with the same result). He concluded with the following advice: 'It's too dangerous for you to come out as gay to your superiors, but I believe that if you work for the ordination of women in your church, you will go a long way toward opening the door for the acceptance of gay priests.'
Read it all here.
Gay activists pose women priests and gay priests as essential developments for their egalitarian religion. Both represent an attempt to destroy the Priesthood as a unique sign of the Pleromic Blood of Jesus.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
"Segal says, if you believe that the Bible was written by men and not handed down in its leather bindings by God, then that verse was written by people for whom polygamy was the way of the world. (The fact that homosexual couples cannot procreate has also been raised as a biblical objection, for didn't God say, "Be fruitful and multiply"? But the Bible authors could never have imagined the brave new world of international adoption and assisted reproductive technology—and besides, heterosexuals who are infertile or past the age of reproducing get married all the time.)
Ozzie and Harriet are nowhere in the New Testament either. The biblical Jesus was—in spite of recent efforts of novelists to paint him otherwise—emphatically unmarried. He preached a radical kind of family, a caring community of believers, whose bond in God superseded all blood ties. Leave your families and follow me, Jesus says in the gospels. There will be no marriage in heaven, he says in Matthew. Jesus never mentions homosexuality, but he roundly condemns divorce (leaving a loophole in some cases for the husbands of unfaithful women)."
Fact: Having more than one wife was not "the way of the world". Only Afro-Asiatic chiefs maintained multiple wives; even then they had only two, maintained in separate households on a north-south axis. This is very clear from a study of the kinship pattern of Abraham's people. The 2 wives at opposite poles represent the binary worldview of the ancient Afro-Asiatics from whom Israel emerged. In this binary worldview homosexuality would be regarded as disordered and ontologically contrary to observable Reality.
Gay activists argue that homosexuality is observed in nature and therefore must be a feature of God's order in creation. No one is ignoring this fact. However, the universal pattern is heterosexuality. Homosexuality, as the anomaly, simply underscores the pattern.
We can't argue that the apparent convergence of Jupitar and Venus is the pattern when such a phenomena occurs rarely. We notice the phenomena because it isn't the norm.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Alice C. Linsley
Gay film maker Max Mitchell plans to publish a pro gay version of The Bible. He hopes to dedicate it to the memory of Princess Diana and to call it 'The Princess Diana Bible'.
It is reported that Revision Studios in New Mexico will fund the new version, in which God says it is better to be gay than straight.
Mitchell hopes to adapt the book for a two-part mini-series, 'The Gay Old Testament' and 'The Gay New Testament'.
"There are many different versions of the Bible, I don't see why we can't have one," said Mitchell. Mitchell claims the gay Bible is divinely inspired and that Jesus was homosexual.
Mitchell's grasp of history and culture is as acute of his delusions. He has said, "In Biblical times homosexual relationships were so commonplace that no one gave it a second thought. It was heterosexuality that was considered sinful."
You can read about Mitchell's proposed non-Bible at a gay website, here.
As Mitchell's project seeks to overturn the binary worldview, he faces a daunting swim against the tide of reality.
In Mitchell's version of Genesis, Adam and Eve are a lesbian couple, Aida and Eve:
"And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Aida, and she slept: and he took one of her ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which the Lord God had taken from woman, made he another woman, and brought her unto the first. And Aida said, 'This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of me. Therefore shall a woman leave her mother, and shall cleave unto her wife: and they shall be one flesh.' And they were both naked, the woman and her wife, and were not ashamed."
The Gay Bible also sets the birth of Cain in an unusual light:
"And Eve conceived, and bore Cain, and said, we have created a child in God’s image. And God said the male was different than the woman because he was fathered by the serpent. … And Eve again conceived with the serpent and bore Cain's brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground."
Oh boy. Cain is fathered by the serpent and has 2 moms. That's too deep (and murky). I should have a ball reviewing this version of Genesis!
Genesis is about the universal blessing (though not universal salvation). In this version all is lost. We are left with distortion and lies.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Concerning the motive for the creation in the mind of God, the Orthodox Confession and the Longer Orthodox Catechism express it thus: The world was created by God “so that other beings glorifying Him, might be participants of His goodness.”
The idea of the mercy and goodness of God, as expressed in the creation of the world, is to be found in many Psalms, such as Psalms 102 and 103 (“Bless the Lord, O my soul”), which call on one to glorify the Lord and give thanks for one's existence and for all of God's providence.
The same thoughts are expressed by the Fathers of the Church. Blessed Theodoret writes, “The Lord God has no need of anyone to praise Him; but by His goodness alone He granted existence to angels, archangels, and the whole creation.” Further, “God has need of nothing; but He, being an abyss of goodness, deigned to give existence to things which did not exist.” St. John Damascene says (as we have just seen), “The good and transcendentally good God was not content to contemplate Himself, but by a superabundance of goodness saw fit that there should be some things to benefit by and participate in His goodness.”
Read it here.