(via Biblia Hebraica)
Browsing Posts in Humor
I came across a wonderful Christian satire site, Tom in the Box News, today. The Better Bible’s Blog turned me on to it today, aleting me to the plight of some poor missionaries who are having a hard time translating “thees” and “thous”. Here is a sample of their wonderfulness.
Dr. Simmons lamented along a similar theme, saying, "Our struggle is how to get the language of the King James Version into Luyana. We want these folks to be able to read the pure, undistorted Word of God. We do have plans in the future to teach them English so they can read the Authorized Version for themselves. However, in the mean time we want to get the KJV translated into Luyana. Unfortunately, we can’t seem to get words like thee, thou, ye, hitherto, and goads to translate into Luyana with any meaning for these people. It just doesn’t work. I don’t know what we are going to do. Some well-meaning friends from back in the USA suggested that we use the original Hebrew and Greek to help us, but we certainly don’t want to introduce any false teaching into this tribe. We’re stuck."
Here is some more from Man Can’t Figure Out KJV – Rejects Christianity:
As Jim listened intently, the teacher began to expound on how the KJV is the only true bible because it contains the all-important phrase, “it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.” The teacher looked straight at Jim and said, “This is why we must study the KJV only. All other versions will lead you astray. We may not know what Jesus meant when he said this, but we sure know it is true. Beware the other versions.”
Ever do theology that way? I’ve been guilty of it – and I bet you have as well.
Our very own Hank from Think Wink points us to the missing portion of 1st Corinthians that was recently discovered over at Ecclesiophilist!
The following is an excerpt from chapters one and two of the Acts of Thomas.
And when the Apostles had been for a time in Jerusalem… they divided the countries among them… And India fell by lot and division to Judas Thomas the Apostle. And he was not willing to go… And whilst Judas was reasoning thus, our Lord appeared to him… [Thomas said to Jesus] “Whithersoever you will, our Lord, send me; only to India I will not go.”
And as Judas was reasoning thus… Habban [and Indian merchant] [was in town and out looking for a slave skilled in carpentry to buy]. And our Lord saw him walking in the street and said to him, “You wish to buy a carpenter? He says to him, “Yes.” Our Lord says to him: “I have a slave, a carpenter, whom I will sell to you… And when he they had completed his bill of sale, Jesus took Judas, and went to Habban the merchant… Habban… said to him: “He has sold you to me outright.” And Judas was silent.
That is some slick maneuvering on ole JC’s part, no? “Oh, whats that Thomas? You don’t wanna go to India like I told you? Well, don’t worry, I won’t make you go to India… I’ll just sell your butt to this Indian merchant! Now you are free to go wherever your master wants to go. Oh, whats that Thomas? He wants to go to India? Who woudda guessed?”
I just love that last part – “And Judas [Thomas] was silent.” I can just see all of the other Apostles snickering in the background with their little toothpicks in hand, saying, “Dude, thouest should have just gone the first time.”
The sometimes funny WuzzaDem looks at Hitchens’ reply to Romney’s Mormon speech: Shocker: Christopher Hitchens Bashes Mitt Romney Speech.
According to the admittedly very contradictory scriptures of the New Testament, Jesus of Nazareth warned his disciples and followers that they should expect to be ridiculed and mocked for their faith. After all, how likely was it that God had decided to reveal himself to only a few illiterate peasants in a barbarous backwater?
What better way to make this point than by mocking and ridiculing Christians?
I think what I like the most about this quote from Hitchens (the first part) is that he is completely anthropomorphizing God here; something the new atheists are always complaining about theists doing (and rightly so!). God must act in the ways that Hitchens thinks that God should act, or the God that others posit does not match Hitchen’s imagined God and therefore does not exist (is there a man of straw in there somewhere?).
C/P at Hundiejo.com
I don’t know if you have heard this story or not but I was very encouraged by it today.
One year at the Feast of the Tabernacles, the Pharisees decided to retry a previous trick on Jesus while the Lord and the twelve were in Jerusalem (John 8:1-11). Again they had caught a prostitute in the immoral action and they siezed her and brought her before Jesus.
Peter, remembering how this went the previous year, told Jesus, “I got this,” and stepped out from the group to confront the Pharisees. As they were asking Jesus the question about the Law, Peter stooped down and began to draw in the dirt, just like Jesus did. Then he stood up and boldly proclaimed to the Pharisees, “Let he who has no sin cast the first stone.”
As soon as Peter said this, something hit him in the back of the head. He looked down at the ground and saw the stone that hit him. He heard someone laughing and he turned to face them, thinking it was his brother or the sons of Zebedee. When he turned around he saw Jesus laughing at him, “You said he who has no sin.”
All matters of scriptural backing aside, this is really funny.
Men can’t be pastors.
10. A man’s place is in the army.
9. For men who have children, their duties might distract them from the responsibilities of being a parent.
8. Their physical build indicates that men are more suited to tasks such as chopping down trees and wrestling mountain lions. It would be “unnatural” for them to do other forms of work.
7. Man was created before woman. It is therefore obvious that man was a prototype. Thus, they represent an experiment, rather than the crowning achievement of creation.
6. Men are too emotional to be priests or pastors. This is easily demonstrated by their conduct at football games and watching basketball tournaments.
5. Some men are handsome; they will distract women worshipers.
4. To be ordained pastor is to nurture the congregation. But this is not a traditional male role. Rather, throughout history, women have been considered to be not only more skilled than men at nurturing, but also more frequently attracted to it. This makes them the obvious choice for ordination.
3. Men are overly prone to violence. No really manly man wants to settle disputes by any means other than by fighting about it. Thus, they would be poor role models, as well as being dangerously unstable in positions of leadership.
2. Men can still be involved in church activities, even without being ordained. They can sweep paths, repair the church roof, and maybe even lead the singing on Father’s Day. By confining themselves to such traditional male roles, they can still be vitally important in the life of the Church.
1. In the New Testament account, the person who betrayed Jesus was a man. Thus, his lack of faith and ensuing punishment stands as a symbol of the subordinated position that all men should take.
Atheist: The burden of proof is on you to establish the existence of this so-called “god” but I believe that if there was any such divine entity “it” would not want us to continue dating.
Intelligent Design Theorist: Our relationship bears the marks of irreducible complexity making it too difficult to explain by way of natural causes. Therefore, there the most reasonable conclusion is that we were designed to break up since things have gotten so complicated.
Calvinist: We were predestined before the creation of the world to break up according to God’s good pleasure. I am, on my own power, unable to break up with you apart from the irresistible draw of God’s sovereign grace which leads me to end this relationship. Those that truly break up will not get back together in the end.
Arminian: While you love me and have a wonderful plan for my life, I have the power to resist your will. If I did not, love would not be possible. For our relationship to be loving it needs to include the possibility of breaking up–something I am doing right now.
New Perspective on Paul Scholar: Rather than earning God’s blessing, it is established on the basis of our covenant courtship (I asked your dad to date you didn’t I?) which requires the proper response of an intentional and deliberate pursuit of marriage. Yet there is no such pursuit, therefore God’s blessing on or relationship is no longer maintained.
Open Theist: I am not really sure if we are supposed to be together, because neither is God.
Theistic Evolutionist: The beauty and rhythm of random variation and natural selection over long periods of time has presented us with a world where God has shown us that our relationship is too biologically expensive to maintain and is destined for extinction.
Young Earth Creationist: No, I do not believe we have been going out for that long. Our relationship is only six days old and the on the seventh God rested. I think we need a rest too.
Emergent: The question if whether we are in relationship or not is mired in Modernity’s obsession with propositional truth. A better a way to look at this is to enter into God’s story about how he lead us together and is now leading us apart.
Catholic:removed – just wasn’t funny.
Lutheran: I want our relationship to continue, but first there are a few things about you that God wants to change. Here is a list of 95 that I made. What? OK, then, I guess we’re done.
Episcopalian: removed – just wasn’t funny.
Fundamentalist: You have tarnished the pure nature of our love by incorporating such heathen elements as “dating” and “fun.” I am afraid I can no longer court you–yea, even speak to you–until you repent of this apostasy.
Mennonite: removed – just wasn’t funny.
