Michael (Dickel) Dekel

Commentary: “conservative Bible Project Cuts Out Liberal Passages”

Tue, 10 Jan 2012 12:23:03 +0200

A post on Facebook just brought to my attention the Huffington Post article about a new Bible revision and translation project (“Conservative Bible Project Cuts Out Liberal Passages,” originally posted March 18, 2010, updated January 4, 2012). The Conservative Bible Project, which claims on its website to have completed their translation of the Christian portions (“New Testament”) on April 23, 2010, sought in its translation to remove “liberal bias” from the Bible by “avoiding unisex, ‘gender inclusive’ language, and other modern emasculation of Christanity,” “using powerful new conservative terms as they develop,” and “explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning,” among other elements in its “guidelines.” On of their listed “possible approaches” is to “identify faulty pro-liberal terms used in existing Bible translations, such as ‘government’, and suggest more accurate substitutes.” As of this date, only the Christian books apparently are completed; of the books that precede Christianity, four are complete and thirty-five incomplete.

One of the benefits the project lists on its website is that: liberals will oppose this effort, but they will have to read the Bible to criticize this, and that will open their minds. This assumes 1.) only conservatives read the Bible, 2.) the Bible will make liberals “see the light” of conservatism, and 3.) liberal have closed minds while conservatives have open minds.

I assert that there are those with open and closed minds in both camps, but I suspect that reveals to the authors of that “benefit” my liberal bias and closed mindedness. As to the Bible making liberals into conservatives, I wonder if they could explain Martin Luther King, Jr., a minister who read the Bible but, I imagine, would be considered liberal (one counter example). Regarding only conservatives reading the Bible, I let it stew in its own self-evident falseness. I refer readers interested in an argument for a more public liberal approach to religion to Rabbi Michael Lerner’s The Left Hand of God: Taking Back Our Country from the Religious Right.

The sincerity of this conservative effort to revise and correct the Bible to reflect contemporary conservative values is revealed best with their desire to "prefer concise, consistent use of the word 'Lord' rather than 'Jehovah' or 'Yahweh' or 'Lord God.'" Certainly, no word better conveys contemporary conservative values than the Medieval term “Lord,” derived from feudalism and hierarchical power structures. It would be much more concise than the Hebrew Name יהוה, which is typically rendered in Roman letters as Yahweh and in English as Jehovah.

Obviously, God, as in “Lord God,” has little to do with their beliefs, as they prefer “Lord.” I’m sure God would be too gender inclusive. In fact, their insistence on “Lord” rather than the Name of God (יהוה) may reveal an ulterior motive for their sixth guideline: “Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil” (emphasis added). Just Whom do they mean by Lord?

Without reference to any translation of the Bible (or its original languages), and in the spirit of The Onion, I offer my Conservative Bible Project Guidelines-driven re-write of the story of the Moneychangers in the Temple to reflect Jesus' true free-market, consumer capitalist approach that was twisted by liberal bias in past renditions:

To the Good Citizens of the Wide World Web of Developed and Civilized Global Economies, I write you the words of the Lord. I hope that you learn well from them and pursue your own interests to the highest degree possible. For Jesus came to the Temple in the heart of Jerusalem and saw that evil guards from the socialist regime were keeping people out.

The people they kept out were well dressed, middle-class, working men. Yet, the nanny-State guards at the Temple doors did not let them in. They let other, less worthy people in, but not these good white male citizens, who are the backbone of the City and provide it its wealth through the productive labor of their workers. This ticked Jesus off.

"Who decides that these guys can't go into my Father’s Temple?” He asked his entourage.

Then He asked the communist guards why they blocked entrance to some, who certainly were hard working family men, while allowing entrance to others, many of whom looked ragged, poor, and were of the female persuasion. Some seemed to be anti-family and even liberal, and did not deserve to be allowed in the Temple. Jesus became angry at this baloney.

“Certainly, my Father did not work his ass off to make a fortune to give it all away to just anybody who comes knocking on the door? Certainly His Fortune goes to those who work hard and hold their wealth close to themselves?”

"We are the liberal guards,” the socialist puppets answered. “These are the Moneychangers. They want to do business within the Temple, the Holiest of Holy Places. Making this place commercial would wreck the Sacred aspect of this Temple where people come to commune with each other and worship God. This is against regulations and violates the peace,” they answered without regard to the logic of Hell. “We don’t believe in Open Markets, like you good Christians do.”

Jesus became pissed about this and told them off, "Hey, regulation causes economic hardship, it costs jobs. Open Markets help all, providing good will that trickles down to the poor, while allowing the wealthy to keep their hard earned profits in their strong vaults. By your own words, you admit that you are communists and sympathetic to questionable extremist views.” By this, he meant that they had said that the Temple allowed people to commune with each other and they valued peace over Free Markets. Their own words proved that they favored dictatorial regulation over individual enterprise.

So, He taught this to the guards: “These men just want to work and make a living, but these nanny-State regulations prevent them from their freedom of expression, that is: their right to change money in any way and any place they choose; their right to go into the Holy of Holies to bribe priests and further their fortunes. This right is given them and them alone by the Lord; they may do this as part of their free speech rights that my Father gave them with his Wealth and Fortune which is reflected in their wealth and fortune. It is up to my Father to decide how much of this Right and this Wealth any one person has. The person of wealth has a Mandate from the Lord to keep his Fortune, given to him by the Lord, and to multiply it for himself and his family alone.”

Yet, the guards did not learn their lesson. They totally disregarded the wisdom of the Lord and the logic of Hell, and continued to keep out those who would do business in the Temple. They chose the path of socialism, which the Lord hates.

Jesus had enough. He offered them a chance to change their ways. Now, He knew it was time for Regime change. So, He pulled out his handgun that He carried in keeping with His right to bear arms and concealed weapons without a permit, and shot the socialist guards, giving the people this lesson to learn:

“All socialists work with the Devil and will go to Hell. If you think socialism is good, you are wrong. Change your mind or die. All social ideals are the Devil’s work. Social contracts come from Hell. Earthly lords must protect the wealthy and powerful and make sure the lazy masses earn their living like the rest of us. Know that you’re either with us or against us.”

Then He tore down the government barricades and threw them on the dirt, shouting to the masses that cheered him on, “This is where all social policies and dictatorial regulations belong. Regulation is evil and prevents you from getting ahead. Socialism keeps you dependent. Follow the rich, for they really know what’s going on. Fight for your right to work hard, earn little, and maybe catch a break to get ahead. There is only one truth: freedom from regulation is sacred to the Lord.” Truer words have not been spoken.

Afterward, the bankers and money changers were very grateful for their chance to make even larger profits then before, and gave Jesus and his followers large rewards of gold and silver. Jesus told His Followers, “See how God rewards us for protecting free enterprise and the unfettered pursuit of wealth?”

This is what Following Christ is about, I assure you. Jesus told us, the devoted servants and followers of the Lord, and the moneychangers who now could go freely into the Temple to do their business, “If this were a Christian country, as God intended, the liberals would be out on their asses and conservatives would assure that every money grubber one of you bankers and money changers got to do whatever you want." I urge this Truth on each and every one of you.

Thus wrote the Conservative Bible's Translation of this Gospel.

[Note: This blog entry is meant as satire and pokes fun at this particular project and a certain strain of political ideology that birthed and nurtured that project. I know well that there are Christians of good faith who hold the values that the conservative Bible project attacks, and conservatives who question the enterprise. I wish them well and good luck in separating their views from those held by the people who take the conservative revisionist project seriously. Without any irony, The Conservative Bible Project website states:
It is very important to translate the Bible correctly. As it is written, "I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book" (Revelation 22, 18-19). ]

Audio Poem: Strange Fire

Thu, 29 Dec 2011 15:06:40 +0200

Smoke and flames of Yahweh flash  lightning thunder screams across spring forecast severe weather storm nothing volcanic blast Vesuvius tamed focused through a lens of incomprehensibility a sense of language meaning that now what is offered is then consumed in one moment’s nuclear flash the people fall down on their knees and the towers’ dusty ash clogs inspiration screams despair and fearing everything knowing nothing I place my freedoms in a protective pan burning incense to the most high exalted beasts of commerce and hoping to see my way through smoke mirroring truth distorting lies until all of a sudden I can no longer catch inspiration choking on my own vomit as darkness closes around me and I wonder who will speak up for me and regain these ashen moths from the shells of glowing cocoons cacophony collapsing sense and words weapons wielded against reality one at a time until they mean nothing.

Eilat Terror Attack

Thu, 18 Aug 2011 17:16:17 +0300

The Associated Press reports that terrorists killed six people today in three separate attacks in southern Israel, near the resort town of Eilat, which is sandwiched between the Egyptian and Jordanian borders. A “terror squad” using heavy weapons, explosives, and guns attacked a bus, an army patrol, and a private car, according to the AP.

The AP cites Israeli and other sources who express concern about increased al-Qaeda related activity in the Sinai, including attacks on Egyptian police and an Israeli-Egyptian oil pipeline. Recently, Egypt has moved forces into the area to respond to this activity.

YNet, the online news service of Yehidiot newspaper in Israel, reports seven dead in four attacks, noting that the terrorists targeted two busses in the attacks. YNet writes that missiles were involved in the attacks. The hospital in Eilat has declared a multiple-casualties emergency and the roads into Eilat have been closed, according to YNet. They report 30 injured. The newspaper, Haaretz reports similar casualty figures on its web site.

According to YNet, the IDF killed seven terrorists in a counter attack. An explosive device was reportedly found on one of the bodies. A possible roadside bomb hit an IDF squad responding to the incident. Reports indicate that the terrorists used both a mortar and an anti-tank missile in the attacks.

YNet cites Israeli army concerns that the terrorists might have wanted to kidnap a soldier. This follows optimistic reports (San Francisco Sentinel, Haaretz) that new negotiations regarding Gilad Shalit, a soldier kidnapped in 2006 by Hamas, might lead to his release. At least one report today indicates that the talks have stopped without plans to continue, although the report does not link the stoppage to the terror events of today.

More on the GOP — opinion

Thu, 2 Jun 2011 11:25:04 +0300

My friend Brian McMorris commented on FB that yesterday’s blog entry was painted with an “awful broad brush” (sic, I think he meant “awfully broad brush,” as in very broad). It may be worthwhile to post my response here, somewhat elaborated and with supporting links (the original of this post appears on my FB profile page). I hope it’s worthwhile for the reader.

Yes, of course it’s a broad brush stroke -- it's a blog opinion piece. It is much like a political cartoon or a caricature. But the sketch fits, I'm afraid. The House did pass a budget bill (Final Vote Results for Roll Call 277 House Clerk) that effectively ends Medicare (a variety of information and opinion on the question of whether it ends Medicare or significantly modifies it: Medicare proposal causing GOP stress; House GOP Considers Privatizing Medicare; Why Privatizing Medicare Will Cost More and Reduce Seniors’ Coverage; An Election Year Survivor Guide to Medicare) — they call it “privatization,” but that’s Orwellian for ending Medicare as we know it and providing it for only those with the means to pay, and as one commentator asks, what insurance company wants seniors?

Republicans have proposed a bill to cut FDA and Agriculture funds while limiting or eliminating new rules to make school lunches healthier and rules that limit advertising of junk food aimed for children (and it's expected to pass committee and possibly the floor). I posted about that, with links to the AP story that provides details, in yesterday’s blog.

These are details. And I confirmed them in AP and other reputable news source, not some left-wing blogs.

The GOP is not the GOP of old -- Nelson Rockefeller wouldn't be welcome in the leadership and likely would be branded a liberal democrat in today's political environment (I recall another friend, Frank Hornstein, referring to Bill Clinton as a Nelson Rockefeller-style Republican once, in informal conversation). It's not even Ronald Reagan's GOP, some write -- one commentator wrote that Reagan would not have approved of some of the actions of today's Republican party leadership (I read this yesterday, but can’t find the link again — will post it when I can find it).

I read the other day that Tim Pawlenty has an alternative to the draconian Republican assault on Medicare -- but his plan is ludicrous. Medicare won't pay according to visits or treatments, he suggests, but according to whether patients get well. Hmmmm. So, a plan for seniors will require doctors to get them better every time, thus going for immortality. Or simply a lack of medical care for seniors with high risk, poor prognosis, or terminal health issues. Unless the seniors are wealthy enough to pay for the care or the extremely high cost of senior health care insurance. Forget the idea of a safety net.

And does the GOP favor corporate profits? Well, wasn’t one of their leaders caught on tape promising to block reductions in tax cuts to big oil? Don’t they promote privatization, consumer capitalism, and the right of those who “earn” their profits to keep them? Don’t they favor tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans? I think it’s a reasonable interpretation.

Still, again, political opinion in a blog more resembles caricature and political cartoons than political science or even journalistic coverage. And the blog yesterday (and this one today) are, Brian and my other friends, opinion.

GOP message: Corporate profits over Children’s Health — opinion

Wed, 1 Jun 2011 20:22:00 +0300

Why am I not surprised? The Republican Party continues to value profits over family, despite its past claims about family values. End Medicare by forcing seniors to pay for private insurance? It's not enough. (Didn't they used to claim this was what the Democrats would do with National Health Care?) Now they want also to stop the administration from enforcing new rules for healthier school lunches.

Why would they prefer to have school children eat less healthy lunches? (Remember the Reagan administration's decision that a serving of ketchup counted as a vegetable serving for school lunches?) According to the AP (see story here), because it would cost too much. Health isn't important. Health care should only be for those who can afford to pay for it privately. And healthier lunches for children? Why waste “my money”? You know, those tax dollars, the tea-smoking pary goers like to call it “my money,” as in “that's my money they're spending.” Of course, in their speeches, it's “your money.” Or so they say.

They also want to ease requirements to put calories on menus. And they want to end restrictions on advertising unhealthy food to children. Why shouldn't children eat junk food if they want to? It's the libertarian thing to do; after all, these tea-smoking party-going Republican folk ate plenty of junk food growing up, no doubt.

Actually, that may explain the brain-damaged way Republicans approach government.

Obviously, the reasons for all of this has little to do with costs to the tax payer. They also want to cut billions of dollars from the FDA and Agricultural Department budgets. Why? Probably it would be very difficult for those agencies to monitor corporate malfeasance (remember, most farm production today is corporate farm production), to restrict profitable short cuts and products that endanger our health and well being, or to enforce already existing laws that might cost the big corporations a few bucks to follow (while saving lives).

Caveat emptor. And I don’t just mean the buyers of products. I also mean the buyers of Reprobate-I-conman rhetoric. If you buy the rhetoric, beware the consequences to you and to society.

The bottom line is that the bottom line is everything—pretend to care about the taxpayers, pretend to be worried about spending (except for corporate welfare), but always, always protect your sponsors' bottom line, no pretense about it. Think about it, healthier lunches and putting calories on menus severely limits fast food businesses that have been entering the school lunch room. The next step will be to “privatize” the programs, certainly government never did anything for us (except build roads and transportations systems, libraries, schools...).

The Republicans are real bottom liners. Jackasses, just like Bottom in Midsummer Night's Dream, running around braying while they think people don't notice how utterly foolish they are. And their followers follow. They should beware (caveat).

The corporations that value profits over their customers' health and lives are already morally and ethically bankrupt, but may eventually find themselves financially bankrupt as their customer base self-destructs on junk food and chemicals. The lords of corporate feudalism are short sighted—favoring increased profits now rather than long term profitability, which would require health and safety considerations (as well as better employment practices to gain more loyal and creative workers and real community relationship building).

Harold Camping may have predicted the end of the world prematurely (again), but someone should be getting the message to the corporate world and their tea-ed off Republican puppets: your polices and practices are the grasshopper, and will destroy your beloved capitalism from within. Try an ant approach, and work hard for the well-being of the whole.

Source: Republicans question healthier eating proposals  by Mary Clare Jalonick
31 May, 2011 4:17 EDT

Connections — The Birth of a Stone: a journey of discovery book review

Sun, 22 May 2011 12:32:48 +0300

I first met Peter Mond, the author of The Birth of a Stone: a journey of discovery (dubbed volume 1), many years ago when I visited and studied for a while in Tzfat, Israel. Peter has studied Kabbalah extensively with Mark Cohen (z’’l) and Yedidah Cohen, authors of In the Shadow of the Ladder. While in Tzfat, I studied with David Friedman, a Kabbalistic artist, and with Yedidah Cohen. Peter and I studied together once a week. It was a good time in my life.

Our study sessions usually began with a l’chaim toast of whiskey. We made our way through some writings of Mark Cohen (z’’l) about Rav Ashlag’s teachings, discussing passages at length and trying to apply them to our experiences, to our lives. We shared stories, other learnings and teachings, and made connections. This is also how Peter writes in his amazing new book, The Birth of a Stone:

He writes with the quiet confidence of an assured story teller with a message of keen observation. He takes every day life, with its triumphs and tragedies, its small joys and frustrations, and shows us how each moment offers a chance for spiritual learning and growth. Placing events of his own life into the context of psychology, theology, and mysticism, he weaves a story that provides insight into the process of living and becoming.

This is not self-help, but a book about helping the self to become what it is meant to be. Readers will learn from it and be able to apply the lessons from the book to their own lives. If readers review their lives as Peter has reviewed his, they might also find revealed a good life, full of learning opportunities and potential for growth.

(Scroll down in your browser to find links to purchase Peter Mond’s book and Mark and Yedidah Cohen’s book, both mentioned in this book review.)

Rapture and Dust (Rapturous)

Fri, 20 May 2011 18:04:15 +0300

I hear that tommorrow (21 May 2011) will be the Rapture, at least according to Harold Camping, an 89 year-old Christian radio broadcaster and retired engineer. After the rapture, friends, follows the end of the world on 21 October 2011. Word in even the Christian blogo-sphere is that Camping also predicted that Jesus would return in 1994, and then, when that didn’t seem to happen, he predicted 1996. “Hang on to your hope my friend./ That's an easy thing to say, but if your hope should pass away/ Simply pretend/ That you can build them again” (Paul Simon, “A Hazy Shade of Winter”).

Photo by M. Dickel (Nikon D-70, Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18–200, f5.6, 1/500, ISO 200)

Just in case you’re not hoping for the Rapture, I don’t think we need worry. The familiar concept of the Rapture traces to a self-taught American theologian, John Darby, in the 1820s–1830s. He might have learned of it through the teachings of Edward Irving, a London Presbyterian minister.

Darby himself participated and was influential in a movement that held that Christianity superseded Mosaic Law and replaced Judaism. This should be familiar to those who know some components of the Rapture and End Days, like the one where all of the Jews are supposed to have returned to Israel and will be given a day to repent and convert or die. Darby had trouble resolving the Book of Daniel’s discussion of sacrifices at the Temple during the End Days with the idea of Jewish Law no longer holding. Obviously, Daniel’s vision saw Jews doing Jewish things (albeit old Jewish things that have not been practiced even by Jews for over 2,000 years).

His resolution includes a compartmentalizing of Biblical and secular history, and a period of resurgence of Judaism. This leads to the idea that all of the Jews would return to and reinstate Israel along the Biblical borders (not yet done, even if you include the Occupied Territories) and the rule of Mosaic Law in the land. This could be debated, but there are many good arguments that the Jewish State and many of its religious proponents have drifted more than a little from Jewish values, if not the letter of the law, which they also may have left behind.

Darby’s views of the End Days, Armageddon, according to one academic article I read a number of years ago (Paul S. Boyer, John Darby Meets Saddam Hussein: Foreign Policy and Bible Prophecy), form the basis of modern U.S. Christian fundamentalist beliefs about the Rapture and the End Days. Boyer argues, in fact, that these views very much influenced both George W. Bush’s foreign policy in general and the U.S. war in Iraq in particular. Other readings I’ve done state that the idea or even the word Rapture does not appear in the Bible (at least, until later translations of it, influenced by Darby’s ideas).

So will the Rapture come? With the world End? Perhaps, through entropy, we might expect an eventual end of this planet, our solar system, the galaxy, and the universe. I’m not sure about this rapturous view of the end of the world, especially this coming sabath (shabbat). Maybe global climate change is a sign, though, who knows?

We have had the weather for it this week here in Jerusalem, though, if from dust we come and to dust we go. Tuesday and Wednesday, the sky looked completely overcast with only a hazy, slight red to gold light coming through. This same reddish-gold haze distorted views of the hills and forests around the city. The haze wasn’t cloud or water vapor, though. It was dust. Each time I went to drive the car, I had to clean the windshield with the washer and wipers. A layer of the reddish dust covered everything outside, and a thinner layer coated the interior of our flat, as we left windows open. Dust covered the leaves of the plants, the road, laundry hanging out our window. From dust to dust.

Photo by M. Dickel (Nikon D-70, Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18–200, f5.6, 1/320, ISO 200)