The Brick Testament: A Skeptics Bible?

Following my favorite childhood hobby, I have taken great pleasure in introducing my kids to Legos. Every Christmas they can depend on getting a new box. In addition to gifts, most of their own spending money also goes to support their obsession. They've been to Legoland at the American Mall and most recently Schaumburg's Legoland Discovery Center. Of course the internet has all kinds of amazing constructions. One group of Lego fanatics actually built a life size replica of a house. When I found the Brick Testament, I thought that was a pretty cool idea. The kids got all excited and we started reading through some of the Bible stories. It wasn't long till I started getting annoyed by little things. What seemed like a great illustrated Bible, turned out to be riddled with bits of sinister contempt underlining certain stories. Could it be a Bible written for skeptics? Just who is this author, “Rev” Brendan Powell Smith?

In October 2012, the Brick New Testament was featured in Time and the Huffington Post. It's now available on Amazon and becoming increasingly popular among Christians and homeschoolers. How long will it be before the local Christian bookstore picks it up? I've already seen it used as sermon illustrations. When approached about the author being a skeptic, the pastor just couldn't believe it and continued using it in his sermons. Maybe this blog will help make things clear, as long as Smith doesn't decide to remove all the evidence from his pages. Before you start your own investigation, make sure your prepared to wade through all the profanities, sarcasm and skeptical rants inundated throughout his blog.

On October 2, Smith posted in his news, “This Saturday, October 6, I will be back in the valley signing books at a Freethinker's convention. I love my job. C'mon out, meet some nice folks and get a signed book! If you can't make it to these great events, you can always order a signed copy of any of The Brick Bible books from The Brick Bible shop! Always nice to meet fans in person though.”¹ I have no problem associating with nice folks who are skeptics and atheist “freethinkers”, how else are Christians suppose to reach out to them with the Gospel? But, isn't the invitation a bit odd? And, if the book is being marketed to this kind of audience, shouldn't it at least arouse some curiosity?

Commenting on one of his chapters, Smith posted a blog titled, “Abraham willing to kill own son for God”, Smith asks, “How morally vile an act would you be willing to perpetrate if you were convinced God told you to do it? Would you steal someone’s wallet? Would you punch a random stranger in the face? Would you hijack a plane and fly it into a skyscraper? Would you slit your beloved son’s throat and burn his corpse? These are the sorts of questions that the faithful must ask themselves, for one never know when they will be tested. And lest you imagine that, as in the latest set of illustrated stories at The Brick Testament website, God will always shows up at the last second to tell you it was all only a test…keep in mind that sometimes God actually wants you to go through with it.” ²

Perhaps you have read some of the praises associated with this work. Rev. Wanda Lundy, professor of Ministry Studies at New York Theological Seminary calls it, “A spectacular twenty-first century Biblical art masterpiece.” “A curiously powerful graphic novel.” - Publisher's Weekly. Wired.com says, “From the pew warmer to the geek dad, this book is the perfect gift.” Can people really be so gullible? Maybe they don't really care.

Remember, as the subtitle states, “A New Spin on the Story of Jesus.” Here's Smith's commentary on his adaptation of Armageddon, “God has a plan. Our pathetic, puny human minds cannot comprehend the utter and sheer brilliance of God’s plan (and God made sure of that by only equipping us with pathetic, puny human minds), but rest assured that God does indeed most certainly have a plan. And here’s one thing we can know about God’s plan: it involves torture. Lots and lots of torture. Sure, torture is generally regarded by us comparatively dim-witted humans as the most morally vile, reprehensible, and cruel behavior possible. But this must only show our lack of intelligence, because God can’t get enough of the stuff. In our latest four illustrated stories from Revelation, God continues to pour down wave after wave of horrible torments on mankind.”³

Now I ask you, does this sound like the kind of person who believes in God? Obviously Smith doesn't think God is trustworthy. He certainly doesn't rely on exegesis and hermeneutics to aid his understanding of Biblical texts and cultural contexts; neither are of any concern or consequence to his agenda. As a matter of fact, it wouldn't surprise me if he was reading through this blog, laughing all the way: the thought of Christians using his “Bible,” he probably never even imagined it would be such a hit. His is the work of pure sarcasm. He's actually contending against Christianity, mocking the Bible. There's better works out there. If you have kids who like illustrated books, then I recommend, The Action Bible, illustrated by Sergio Cariello. Another great Bible story book that is out of print is God's Story: The Bible Told as One Story by Karen Henly.

Footnotes / Sources

1. http://www.thebricktestament.com/latest_additions/index.html
2. http://www.thereverend.com/archives/2010/12/09/abraham-willing-to-kill-own-son-for-god/
3. http://www.thereverend.com/archives/2009/06/05/the-brick-testament-armageddon/
4. http://www.thebricktestament.com/home.html
   
5. http://brendanpowellsmith.com/
   

The King James Version: 400 Years of Celebration and Controversy

 

I was a bit surprised to find NPR and so many other news outlets reporting on the birthday of the KJV. Born at a time when the reformation was spreading across Europe, King James ordered what has arguably become the most beloved English translation of the Bible. Incidentally, there is no evidence that he actually gave it his final approval, although it has come to be called the “Authorized Version.” Nevertheless, there are those who attack it on account of King James I being suspected of homosexuality, although he was not involved in the translation process (I'm sure that if it was under the direction of his father it would have been otherwise). Others hold the translation as being directly overseen by God to guarantee against all human error, as called the King James Only camp.

The Authorized King James Version was based on a Greek New Testament by the Catholic scholar Erasmus in 1516, known as the Textus Receptus (received text), which William Tyndale and Martin Luther also used for their translations. According to a computer analysis approximately eighty-five percent of the words of the KJV originated with Tyndale,¹ who was rewarded by being burned at the stake for his work. While I do not claim to be a scholar or an expert on the subject of translations—although I do know a little Greek, he owns a restaurant down the road, but he's really not very little (lol)—most Christian scholars consider the original text to have been inspired and inerrant, rather than the translations.² Contrary to Islamic tradition, in which adherents are expected to learn Arabic to have the pure form of the Qur'an, for Christians this has never been an issue, at least that is, not until the late 1900s.³ This recent debate has probably stemmed in part from certain fundamentalists which insisted on literal interpretations,⁴ along with the on-going discovery of earlier manuscripts.

To be precise, it is the Alexandrian manuscript that has actually spurred so much of the contention. As noted in my previous blog, the long ending in the Gospel of Mark as well as other passages are not included in earlier manuscripts. Although they do not change any doctrines, they have been referenced in support of certain doctrines.

As posted on Wikipedia, James White breaks the movement down to five primary categories:⁵

• "I Like the KJV Best" - Though White lists this group as a division of the King James Only group, this division does not believe that the KJV is the only acceptable version, thus disqualifying them from being "King James Only". This group simply prefers the KJV over other translations because their church uses it, because they have always used it, or because they like its style.⁶
• "The Textual Argument" - This group believes that the KJV's Hebrew and Greek textual bases are the most accurate. These conclude that the KJV is based on better manuscripts. Many in this group may accept a modern version based on the same manuscripts as the KJV. White claims Zane C. Hodges is a good example of this group.⁷ However, Hodges would consider that the Majority Text "corrects" the Received Text as seen e.g., in the Majority Text textual apparatus of the New King James Version. The Trinitarian Bible Society would fit in this division; however, "the Trinitarian Bible Society does not believe the Authorized Version to be a perfect translation, only that it is the best available translation in the English language",⁸ and "the Society believes this text is superior to the texts used by the United Bible Societies and other Bible publishers, which texts have as their basis a relatively few seriously defective manuscripts from the 4th century and which have been compiled using 20th century rationalistic principles of scholarship."⁹
• "Received Text Only" - Here, the traditional Hebrew and Greek texts are believed to be supernaturally preserved. The KJV is believed to be an exemplary translation, but it is also believed that other translations based on these texts have the potential to be equally good. Donald Waite would fall into this category.
• "The Inspired KJV Group" - This faction believe that the KJV itself was divinely inspired. They see the translation to be preserved by God and as accurate as the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts found in its underlying texts. Sometimes this group will even exclude other language versions based on the same manuscripts claiming the KJV to be the only Bible.
• "The KJV As New Revelation" - This group claims that the KJV is a "new revelation" or "advanced revelation" from God, and it should be the standard from which all other translations originate. Adherents to this belief may also believe that the original-language Hebrew and Greek can be corrected by the KJV. This view is often called "Ruckmanism" after Peter Ruckman, a staunch advocate of this view.

Another argument that has been leveled at modern versions is the issue of copyrights. I've heard it argued that nobody can place a copyright on the word of God, thus the KJV wins by default. Of course, with all the expenses involved in research and translation work, who can blame publishers from wanting to stay in the black. Yes, there is profit to be had in any case. But, the original manuscripts are the real conflict and they are not copyrighted.

As someone who grew up on the KJV, I am one of the few who still enjoy reading the old Elizabethan English. I no longer subscribe to the KJV as the only viable translation (when I was young I actually condemned all alternative versions to our basement). There's one thing I've found true and I think Mark Twain said it best, “It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.” I think the same can be said for the various modern Bible translations. In celebration of the KJV and its predecessors, I am happy to enjoy both the freedom of access and the availability of such a rich storehouse of treasures.

Hebrews 4:12

For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. NIV2010¹⁰

For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. KJV¹¹

1 The Bible in English, David Daniell, cited in From Tyndale to Madison, Michael Farris

2 Dr. Norman Geisler, Dr. William Lane Craig,

3 Chick Publications helped circulate this position in their materials. They also promoted Gail Riplinger's New Age Bible Versions which has been totally refuted by Dr. James White in their debate as well as his book, The King James Only Controversy. According to Wikipedia, the controversy dates to at least 1987: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King-James-Only_Movement.

4 A good method of interpreting Scripture is to recognize that only those things that were intended to be taken literally should be interpreted literally. i.e. Revelation depicts Jesus with a sword coming out of his mouth; it is understood to be symbolic, not literal. This may be an extreme example, one that is not actually disputed (except by atheists), but it serves to illustrate the point.

5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King-James-Only_Movement#Variations

6 The Breath and Heartbeat of God, Gail Riplinger; In Awe of Thy Word, http://www.chick.com/reading/books/284/0284_09.asp.

7 The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations?, James White

8 The Accuracy of the Authorized Version, Malcolm H. Watts

9 The Text of the Bible used by the Trinitarian Bible Society, http://trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/principles.asp

10 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+4%3A12&version=NIV

11 http://bible.cc/hebrews/4-12.htm

Free eBooks

I've come across numerous web sights that have great ebooks available for free online and some for download, from Alvin Plantinga to Zwingli. Check it out on my resource page:

http://helpfulresources.blogspot.com/2011/02/free-ebooks.html


My general blog for resources can be found here:

http://helpfulresources.blogspot.com/

Manuscript Authority and the New Testament

Is the New Testament really that reliable? Scholars such as Dan Wallace of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts,1 Darrell Bock, Ben Witherington III and Craig Keener have been answering the recent attacks by New Testament critics.

A manuscript is a handwritten copy of an ancient document. There are over 5,700 Greek New Testament Manuscripts. Some are fragments or individual books. There are 60 complete copies of the entire N.T. in Greek. They have also found over 10,000 Latin manuscripts of the N.T.

An autograph copy is the original document that was written by the author. There are no known autographs of any ancient writing, including the Bible. Nevertheless, as manuscripts continue to roll in, the earliest New Testament fragment spans less then 50 years from the original. Furthermore, ten to fifteen more manuscripts' dates fall into the second century. The earliest complete manuscript is dated at 350 A.D.2

Other ancient literature doesn't even compare with the N.T. in manuscript authority. Homer's Iliad ranks second to the Bible with a 500 year gap between the original autograph and the earliest manuscript copy, dating at 400 B.C., with 643 manuscripts. At the approximate time when the books in the N.T. were being written, Pliny wrote his History with a 750 year gap, dating at 850 A.D., of which there are only 7 manuscripts.3

There are also a number of early quotations from the early church. Between the first and thirteenth century, one million such quotations exist. “...there are 32,000 quotations from the New Testament found in writings from before the council of Nicea in 325 A.D. (Josh Mcdowell Evidence, 1972:52). J. Harold Greenlee points out that the quotations of the scripture in the works of the early church writers are so extensive that the New Testament could virtually be reconstructed from them without the use of New Testament manuscripts.”4



1 http://www.csntm.org/
2 http://www.cpcfc.org/audio/071111_Dan_Wallace.mp3
Reinventing Jesus by Daniel Wallace, J. Ed Komoszewski and M. James Sawyer
3 http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence
4 http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/bibmanu.htm