Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 13:34:17 -1000 From: lambda@aloha.net (Martin Rice) Subject: SA 016: UNPUBLISHED LETTER TO THE KAUA`I TIMES Aloha awakea kakou. Following please find a letter that sent recently to the editor of the Kaua`i Times. I was informed that the letter would not be published as the new owner, a Mormon, has called a moratoreum on publishing letters dealing with the same-sex [marriage] issue. To the Editor: Mr. Wentworth Simpson's letter to the Kaua`i Times of June 7 only exemplifies the myths the he and others attempt to make us believe about the Bible. First and foremost the Bible was written by mankind, regardless of the inspiration. And it has been rewritten, AND revised, AND polticized AND mistranslated to such an extent, that it is impossible to discern the original text. If God wrote the Bible, then why didn't he teach His Son to read it? Jesus was illiterate, there is no record of Him having ever *read* anything. And of the twelve apostles, it is believed that only John may have been educated to the point of literacy. The gospels are not journals, but rather records finally put on paper some after some 80 to 100 years of oral tradition after the cruxificion. Just this past month, a news report indicated that a particular Christian sect was not going to revise whatever version of the Bible that they happen to believe, as a vote was called concerning "degenderizing" the Book. The vote failed, and it was indicated by the report that there was great relief. To get to that point, there had to be a lot of caucusing, cajoling, politicking and consensus building by the "winning" group. This is yet another example of the Bible's politicalization. The oldest books contained in the Bible, including Leviticus, were handed down from one generation to the next in the oral tradition and finally transcribed into ancient Hebrew, which was translated into Arabic, and then Greek, Latin and then Old and Middle English before coming to us in the language that we understand today. Through all those translations, isn't it feasible that something may have been lost? To illustrate this point, try reading this: Fęder ure, žu Že eart on heofonum, si Žin nama gehalgod, Tobecume Žin rice. GewurŽe šin willa on eoršan swa swa on heofonum. Urne gedęghwamlican hlaf syle us to dęg. And forgyf us ure gyltas, swa swa we forgyfaš urum gyltendum. And ne gelęd Žu us on cotnunge, ac alys us of yfele. SoŽice. Now, try reading it again, knowing that this is the beginning of Middle English as it appeared 450 years ago, just prior to the rewriting of the Bible that would become the King James Version. Do you recognize that passage yet? It is the Lord's Prayer in our language, and is an example of how words can evolve, even within the context of one language of the five it took to bring us the Book. Secondly, Simpson quotes Levitican law which was used by the ancient Jews, some 4,000 years ago, but fails to mention that the laws of modern Israel do not currently reflect all of this ancient "wisdom" as scribed. Simpson claims homosexuality is a sin, but that is not contained in the Bible. The Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination, and as such, ranks right up there with the other abominations of wearing cloth of blended fibers, shaving your beard, sowing different seeds in the same field and eating shellfish, to name a few. I find that is the selective enforcement and creative interpretation that is the abomination. I don't see anyone getting on soapboxes expounding upon the 362 biblical admonitions directed towards heterosexual people. Why is that? Another point Simpson made I find confusing when he wrote that the only reason that the word "homosexual" does not appear in the Bible is that it is a modern word. Our library's Oxford English Dictionary, in it's 1961 edition, does not list that word, but in the Short Edition of the OED published in 1966, the word is included and the OED notes that the first recorded usage of "homosexual" and its deriviatives came into being in 1897. But Simpson stated that his (presumably modern) version of the Bible eludes to this word in several instances, but in other places Simpson translates "a detestable thing" to mean homosexuality also. Why wasn't his version "corrected" throughout? Could it be that "a detestable thing" refers to something else? Simpson was quick to cite the etymological linkages to Sodom, but if he were to look in the dictionnary he will find that sodomy does't necessary occur between two people of the same gender. Also, Mr. Simpson, while you have that dictionnary in-hand, try looking up other etymological links such as semen, disseminate and seminarian. There are more, but for the sake of good taste, you can do the linkage on friar, rectory, vicarage, penance, shroud and testament. Simpson quotes Romans, but in essence he is quoting *a letter* written by *a man*. Simpson quotes Genesis and Leviticus, revised and revised and revised yet again, but finds the need to insert the word "homosexual" into a creative translation to prove his point. And he still has yet to cite where Jesus specifically condemns homosexuality. And finally, much can be said about the many versions of the Bible that mankind has published, but according to the Bible, there can only be one true version, because Jesus founded only one faith. He told the man who would become Saint Peter the he would be the rock on whom Jesus would build his church (Matthew 16:18). Jesus did not say it to John Calvin, King Henry VIII, Brigham Young, Martin Luther, John Smith or any other person. It would follow then that the only true version of the Bible is the Douai. After saying all that, to rephrase Simpson, I would say that Christianity is no better then the rest of the various religions. What is amazingly overlooked is that when all of the external trappings are peeled back, and the core beliefs of each religion are exposed, a universal thread of truth and goodness runs through all of them. Why not focus on that? /s/ Martin Rice 5117 Lokene Street Kapa`a 96746 822-7171 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "To imply that lesbians and gay men are somehow incompatible with, or incapable or unworthy of, marriage or morality is not morality; it is discrimination." --Dan Foley, Evan Wolfson and Kirk Cashmere Answering Brief, Baehr v. Miike ~~~~~ Fred and Martin 24 years, yet strangers before the law ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~