- Shopping Bag ( 0 items )
Posted June 18, 2009
I Also Recommend:
Painting by committee
If the Mona Lisa had been painted by a committee, instead of an artist, would anybody want to see it today? Would it be in a museum? How would people view it if they even knew of it? I purchased this book in the hope that I would get the latest translation available on some ancient text believed to be "sacred writing" and discover on pagee xix and xx that the writing really isn't "sacred" after all because we "in the interest of accuracy" change the writing of the principal character from the ancient anagram YHWH and YHWH elohim" to what is approved in the Revised Standard Version" or the "New Revised Standard." We aren't even into the book yet and already changing the "sacred" text to read what we want it to read. I suppose my definition of "sacred" might differ from that of the author's because...to me when one says that such and such is sacred, then it should be expressed as it was written. Period. Enf of debate. Based on the looseness with which we play with the identifiers, I give it just a few more years and you will completely write God's name out of the equation. If the text is truly sacred, keep your grubby paws of it. Secondly, this is not the place to interject your petty little political belief that the Book of Genesis argues for Monogamy. How many wives did you say Joseph had? Esau? Isaac? and that venerable old warhorse and paragon of marital fidelity and wisdom, King Solomon? What!!! Only 700 wives and 300 concubines!!! and I thought it was worse. Besides, "God said do not add to or subtract from." Are you trying to promote the idea that God got it wrong? That he should have mentioned it because you wanted it. When God admonished David for his affair with good old Bethsheba, didn't God admonish him for not settling on all King Dau's wives and Concubines which he, God, had given him. Thirdly, writers, in general need, need, need to start putting the Spirit back into the Bible or the future is not going to be a good one. Somebody needs to wake up to the fact that believing is an intense personal experience subject which you should be able to share. If you want to turn religion into a science, continue on the path you are on and you will get there. You will not be better off for having done so. There is nothing mechanistic about religion yet every new text I read points in that direction. Everyone needs to get back to God's basics and follow the laws, ordinances, statutes, and decrees without adding to or subtracting from. I could have liked the book but I do not. I wanted a translation of sacred works and got a revised and approved copy of what you thought I could read and handle. I'll know better the next time
5 out of 7 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.