home
RSS
Actually, that's not in the Bible
Satan tempted Eve in the Garden of Eden right? Nope. That's one of many phantom passages that people think are in the Bible.
June 5th, 2011
01:00 AM ET

Actually, that's not in the Bible

By John Blake, CNN

(CNN) – NFL legend Mike Ditka was giving a news conference one day after being fired as the coach of the Chicago Bears when he decided to quote the Bible.

“Scripture tells you that all things shall pass,” a choked-up Ditka said after leading his team to only five wins during the previous season.  “This, too, shall pass.”

Ditka fumbled his biblical citation, though. The phrase “This, too, shall pass” doesn’t appear in the Bible. Ditka was quoting a phantom scripture that sounds like it belongs in the Bible, but look closer and it’s not there.

Ditka’s biblical blunder is as common as preachers delivering long-winded public prayers. The Bible may be the most revered book in America, but it’s also one of the most misquoted. Politicians, motivational speakers, coaches - all types of people  - quote passages that actually have no place in the Bible, religious scholars say.

These phantom passages include:

“God helps those who help themselves.”

“Spare the rod, spoil the child.”

And there is this often-cited paraphrase: Satan tempted Eve to eat the forbidden apple in the Garden of Eden.

None of those passages appear in the Bible, and one is actually anti-biblical, scholars say.

But people rarely challenge them because biblical ignorance is so pervasive that it even reaches groups of people who should know better, says Steve Bouma-Prediger, a religion professor at Hope College in Holland, Michigan.

“In my college religion classes, I sometimes quote 2 Hesitations 4:3 (‘There are no internal combustion engines in heaven’),” Bouma-Prediger says. “I wait to see if anyone realizes that there is no such book in the Bible and therefore no such verse.

“Only a few catch on.”

Few catch on because they don’t want to - people prefer knowing biblical passages that reinforce their pre-existing beliefs, a Bible professor says.

“Most people who profess a deep love of the Bible have never actually read the book,” says Rabbi Rami Shapiro, who once had to persuade a student in his Bible class at Middle Tennessee State University that the saying “this dog won’t hunt” doesn’t appear in the Book of Proverbs.

“They have memorized parts of texts that they can string together to prove the biblical basis for whatever it is they believe in,” he says, “but they ignore the vast majority of the text."

Phantom biblical passages work in mysterious ways

Ignorance isn’t the only cause for phantom Bible verses. Confusion is another.

Some of the most popular faux verses are pithy paraphrases of biblical concepts or bits of folk wisdom.

Consider these two:

“God works in mysterious ways.”

“Cleanliness is next to Godliness.”

Both sound as if they are taken from the Bible, but they’re not. The first is a paraphrase of a 19th century hymn by the English poet William Cowper (“God moves in a mysterious way, His wonders to perform).

The “cleanliness” passage was coined by John Wesley, the 18th century evangelist who founded Methodism,  says Thomas Kidd, a history professor at Baylor University in Texas.

“No matter if John Wesley or someone else came up with a wise saying - if it sounds proverbish, people figure it must come from the Bible,” Kidd says.

Our fondness for the short and tweet-worthy may also explain our fondness for phantom biblical phrases. The pseudo-verses function like theological tweets: They’re pithy summarizations of biblical concepts.

“Spare the rod, spoil the child” falls into that category. It’s a popular verse - and painful for many kids. Could some enterprising kid avoid the rod by pointing out to his mother that it's not in the Bible?

It’s doubtful. Her possible retort: The popular saying is a distillation of Proverbs 13:24: “The one who withholds [or spares] the rod is one who hates his son.”

Another saying that sounds Bible-worthy: “Pride goes before a fall.” But its approximation, Proverbs 16:18, is actually written: “Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.”

There are some phantom biblical verses for which no excuse can be offered. The speaker goofed.

That’s what Bruce Wells, a theology professor, thinks happened to Ditka, the former NFL coach, when he strayed from the gridiron to biblical commentary during his 1993 press conference in Chicago.

Wells watched Ditka’s biblical blunder on local television when he lived in Chicago. After Ditka cited the mysterious passage, reporters scrambled unsuccessfully the next day to find the biblical source.

They should have consulted Wells, who is now director of the ancient studies program at Saint Joseph’s University in Pennsylvania. Wells says Ditka’s error probably came from a peculiar feature of the King James Bible.

“My hunch on the Ditka quote is that it comes from a quirk of the King James translation,” Wells says. “Ancient Hebrew had a particular way of saying things like, ‘and the next thing that happened was…’ The King James translators of the Old Testament consistently rendered this as ‘and it came to pass.’ ’’

When phantom Bible passages turn dangerous

People may get verses wrong, but they also mangle plenty of well-known biblical stories as well.

Two examples: The scripture never says a whale swallowed Jonah, the Old Testament prophet, nor did any New Testament passages say that three wise men visited baby Jesus, scholars say.

Those details may seem minor, but scholars say one popular phantom Bible story stands above the rest: The Genesis story about the fall of humanity.

Most people know the popular version - Satan in the guise of a serpent tempts Eve to pick the forbidden apple from the Tree of Life. It’s been downhill ever since.

But the story in the book of Genesis never places Satan in the Garden of Eden.

“Genesis mentions nothing but a serpent,” says Kevin Dunn, chair of the department of religion at Tufts University in Massachusetts.

“Not only does the text not mention Satan, the very idea of Satan as a devilish tempter postdates the composition of the Garden of Eden story by at least 500 years,” Dunn says.

Getting biblical scriptures and stories wrong may not seem significant, but it can become dangerous, one scholar says.

Most people have heard this one: “God helps those that help themselves.” It’s another phantom scripture that appears nowhere in the Bible, but many people think it does. It's actually attributed to Benjamin Franklin, one of the nation's founding fathers.

The passage is popular in part because it is a reflection of cherished American values: individual liberty and self-reliance, says Sidnie White Crawford, a religious studies scholar at the University of Nebraska.

Yet that passage contradicts the biblical definition of goodness: defining one’s worth by what one does for others, like the poor and the outcast, Crawford says.

Crawford cites a scripture from Leviticus that tells people that when they harvest the land, they should leave some “for the poor and the alien” (Leviticus 19:9-10), and another passage from Deuteronomy that declares that people should not be “tight-fisted toward your needy neighbor.”

“We often infect the Bible with our own values and morals, not asking what the Bible’s values and morals really are,” Crawford says.

Where do these phantom passages come from?

It’s easy to blame the spread of phantom biblical passages on pervasive biblical illiteracy. But the causes are varied and go back centuries.

Some of the guilty parties are anonymous, lost to history. They are artists and storytellers who over the years embellished biblical stories and passages with their own twists.

If, say, you were an anonymous artist painting the Garden of Eden during the Renaissance, why not portray the serpent as the devil to give some punch to your creation? And if you’re a preacher telling a story about Jonah, doesn’t it just sound better to say that Jonah was swallowed by a whale, not a “great fish”?

Others blame the spread of phantom Bible passages on King James, or more specifically the declining popularity of the King James translation of the Bible.

That translation, which marks 400 years of existence this year, had a near monopoly on the Bible market as recently as 50 years ago, says Douglas Jacobsen, a professor of church history and theology at Messiah College in Pennsylvania.

“If you quoted the Bible and got it wrong then, people were more likely to notice because there was only one text,” he says. “Today, so many different translations are used that almost no one can tell for sure if something supposedly from the Bible is being quoted accurately or not.”

Others blame the spread of phantom biblical verses on Martin Luther, the German monk who ignited the Protestant Reformation, the massive “protest” against the excesses of the Roman Catholic Church that led to the formation of Protestant church denominations.

“It is a great Protestant tradition for anyone - milkmaid, cobbler, or innkeeper - to be able to pick up the Bible and read for herself. No need for a highly trained scholar or cleric to walk a lay person through the text,” says Craig Hazen, director of the Christian Apologetics program at Biola University in Southern California.

But often the milkmaid, the cobbler - and the NFL coach - start creating biblical passages without the guidance of biblical experts, he says.

“You can see this manifest today in living room Bible studies across North America where lovely Christian people, with no training whatsoever, drink decaf, eat brownies and ask each other, ‘What does this text mean to you?’’’ Hazen says.

“Not only do they get the interpretation wrong, but very often end up quoting verses that really aren’t there.”

- CNN Writer

Filed under: Belief • Bible • Books • Christianity • Evangelical • Faith

soundoff (8,603 Responses)
  1. Erin

    With regards to the Bible itself, all I can say is that I hope it too shall someday pass.

    June 5, 2011 at 12:10 pm |
    • sarahfalin

      Yep

      June 5, 2011 at 12:28 pm |
    • Will

      Why? So the world can fall further into depravity and hedonism? So you can live your life without having to worry about morals? You are just looking for ways not to take responsibility for your actions and getting rid of the Bible would be a good way for people like you to get started on that. Good thing ppl have been trying to do that for thousands of years, but they still haven't pulled it off. What makes you think you will ever see a day where that happens?

      June 5, 2011 at 12:33 pm |
    • aerie

      Will, my morals were learned and established the hard way – by the sweat of my brow and my character and my empathic concern for all living beings; I have no need to obey the legalistic, ostentatious rules of an evil, malevolent, vengeful god-creature.

      Obviously, you do need some simplified rules of behavior because as you have just told us – if you didn't have Him telling you what to do or what not to do, *you* feel free to do as you please.

      June 5, 2011 at 1:00 pm |
  2. Violet Flame

    Fruitless argument over semantics. Stop the war and the hate. Love one another. Forgive those who deserve it the least. I refuse to pass judgement.

    June 5, 2011 at 12:09 pm |
    • Karen Flanders

      Very nicely put! I do believe we can reason together, only in the effort to help the other. Not for the "joy" of being right. Many times I have been told something that I didn't know or believe, and whoa!! a light came on!

      June 5, 2011 at 12:14 pm |
    • Will

      Some people might take it far, but passing judgement is how you protect yourself from people who will bring you down. To each his own may sound nice, but in the end we all have to judge who we want to be and that involves judging others.

      June 5, 2011 at 12:53 pm |
  3. James Black


    <

    June 5, 2011 at 12:09 pm |
  4. Gadadhoon

    I am an active conservative Christian, and I don't see how any Christian can disagree with the main thrust of this article. One of the main problems with religious people today is that they use the following logic: They know that God is good, and they define good as the things they like. They then define God as "things I like", and thereby end up (essentially) worshiping an image of God they have created, which is really themselves. This leads to reinforcement of whatever cultural notions they started out with, and increasing hatred of all others. The logical order in which scripture should be used, and the way in which I believe the Holy Spirit works through us, is first for correcting your own life (beliefs and then actions towards others) and ONLY then as a means of teaching others (2 Timothy 3:16 Luke 6:42 Galatians 5:22). People try to put the teaching bit first, and even then only do it as a means of defending their pre-conceived beliefs instead of as a means of helping others out of love as Jesus did.

    June 5, 2011 at 12:09 pm |
    • Karen Flanders

      Very true. I know people who will bulldog a subject to death, just because it's what they've been taught. But do they FEEL anything besides satisfaction in regards to being LOUDER or RIGHTER?

      We are bombarded daily with different ideas and beliefs. It's imperative that we be still, and find out what we even do believe!!
      We need to be rooted in a deep foundation of truth and love, and be always ready to help our brother.

      Our short time here on earth is a vapor. We are children of the King!!

      June 5, 2011 at 12:18 pm |
    • JackStraw19631

      This is a wonderful, thoughtful post. It's hard to understand why more people don't understand their faith this way.

      June 5, 2011 at 12:52 pm |
    • Vito LaBella

      Perhaps it's because conversations about people of faith, especially Christians, revert to ridicule and a systematic attack on the core beliefs.

      June 5, 2011 at 12:57 pm |
    • Vito LaBella

      Why then not offer up the same type of article about, say, a much younger faith that has garnered a great deal of attention over the last decade? It seems that quite a bit of discussion could be had – no?

      June 5, 2011 at 1:07 pm |
  5. JIM

    Through time eliite, self important bible scholars have felt a need to insulate the masses from the truth. ex: the story of the garden of eden. It rather equates to the Jack Nicholson character who said "You cant handle the truth". We see it every day in government and press, where they treat the ignorant masses like toddlers. "You cant use the N word or the F word or the R word ad infinitum. I have decided that I live in a society of I words.

    June 5, 2011 at 12:09 pm |
    • Karen Flanders

      I love that quote! "You can't handle the truth". Good movie too...That Jack..."One flew over the cuckoos nest" was awesome too~!! Sorry, I digress.

      The truth is, that some people just can't handle all that is thrown at them. It's just too much. Same with religious overkill. That is man, not the Spirit of God.
      I don't use the N, F, or R words alot ( I'm human, Help me God!) but I would never ever say them in a way that would offend or hurt anyone else.
      I know that knowledge comes over a period of time. Willingly seeking for truth. Not one ready to go drink the kool-aid.

      Not trying to offend anyone here- but I will say that I have gotten much help daily through the emails I receive from the "Bereans Call". The Bereans were known for truth. If you sign up, you get a daily email, which I am here to tell you has helped my knowledge!
      http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm

      June 5, 2011 at 12:27 pm |
  6. Allan

    Another mistake, which appears in the article itself' is that the snake tempted Eve to eat the "apple" from the Tree of Life. Actually, it ws from the Tree of Knowledge. Perhaps this article's author should check on his own 'phantom verses'.

    June 5, 2011 at 12:08 pm |
    • Kelly

      Allan,
      Maybe you should be willing to see the truth. We do not have the original writings in the bible. We have copies that were made from numerous prior copies. Copies by scribes who couldn't read or write. People with their own agendas that changed the wording and messages and the Greeks didn't use periods or capitols which can change the meaning of a sentence. What about the part that says a woman who cuts her hair has sinned that is in the bible? What about all the other gospels that were left out. What about reincarnation that was in there, but taken out by a very nasty person. The bible is no longer Jesus teachings, if it ever was. It's really very simple people. If what you are thinking, saying and doing is not about love, it's NOT about God.

      June 5, 2011 at 12:23 pm |
  7. Jacob

    Satan did not exist in the Jewish culture. That was a New Testament addition. If you look at any mention of Satan in the OT (primarily in the book of Job) and look up the original text, Satan has been translated by the Church from the phrase "an adversary." That's why it's absurd to claim the serpent was intended to be Satan. It was just a talking snake.

    June 5, 2011 at 12:06 pm |
  8. Steve S

    John, you're an idiot. The quote was only in the first sentence. The second sentence was a commentary. Wow. What a waste of a story. Not as if people have not misquoted the bible, but he was not trying to quote anything in the second sentence.

    June 5, 2011 at 12:06 pm |
  9. Alex Lifeson

    Flawed, farting, defecating, smelly MORTAL MEN wrote The Bible, and ALL religious books, tomes, and manuscripts throughout history. Not some 'pie in the sky' god!!!

    June 5, 2011 at 12:06 pm |
  10. mm

    Some of the quotes are definitely not in the Bible, however some are depends on what version you are reading.

    June 5, 2011 at 12:05 pm |
  11. demogal

    The one my mom always used on me was "How sharper than a serpent's tooth it is to have a thankless child," which she said came from Proverbs. Luckily in high school I was able to give her the correct source, which is the Shakespeare play "King Lear." Don't think she appreciated being enlightened!

    June 5, 2011 at 12:05 pm |
  12. Jim

    For years I tried to instigate a "Christ Quotes Communion" in which nice friendly intelligent folk would share personal perspectives of words that Jesus Christ actually said. But I had ignored one vitally important Christ Quote myself: "Don't think I've come to bring peace upon the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. I've come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a bride against her mother-in-law, and the household of a man will be his enemies." Was it St. Paul who said, "All that is true is not expedient".

    June 5, 2011 at 12:05 pm |
  13. Colin

    Charlie, whilst accepting that there are some good life lessons in the tome, and some nice poetry, one must also look at the downsides – the open support of sla.very, conquering warfare, murder, ra.pe and even genocide. When all is balanced, and the supernatural nonsense backed out of the equation, I think it is difficult to consider it as a very inspirational book.

    June 5, 2011 at 12:04 pm |
  14. Daniel

    ...............This is just another reason why the bible needs to be outlawed .
    This ancient cult has run it's time , but lets redecorate it to fit human needs every hundred yrs .

    June 5, 2011 at 12:04 pm |
    • Hmm

      Yeah why not? We'll just outlaw everything you don't agree with. Then the world will be a much better place.

      June 5, 2011 at 12:13 pm |
    • demogal

      Not outlawed, but put in its proper perspective as one of a number of ancient texts of myth and legend. Those who wish to use it as guidelines for a moral life are free to do so, but not impose their interpretations of its "laws" on the rest of humanity.

      June 5, 2011 at 12:16 pm |
    • Faux Paws

      So you wanna outlaw books huh ? I think they have a job for you at the Vatican.

      June 5, 2011 at 12:59 pm |
  15. James Black


    June 5, 2011 at 12:03 pm |
  16. Carl A. Patton

    THE KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE: A LESSON IN STUDY
    (CONFUSION OF WORDS)
    3 August 2008 by Carl A. Patton

    Greetings Brethren,

    Peace be unto you. To the Church and believing Christians everywhere. We greet you in the mighty name of our Father Almighty God and to His son our Savior Christ Jesus blessed by the Holy Spirit. It is good to feel the presence of the Spirit as I look to these words. Thus I am forever grateful for the Spirit that dwells inside me.

    Our discussion today has been inspired by the countless people who have a flawed understanding about the prominence of the King James Version of the Bible as the primary study Bible. Why has this happened? Most of the people that opt for other translations are ignorant and are not avid Bible readers. Thus most are just longtime pew members who carry a Bible to the various services but have a mental block toward organized systematic study. Some also have been duped by cults to resist anything not sanctioned by the cult leaders, son, daughter, brother and pastor. Also various preachers and denominations opt for other Bibles for reasons that most cannot and will not attempt to explain.

    For the record and for a primary way toward Bible study one should read and study the Bible selectively. For example center in on a particular concept, theme etc. for instance what does the Bible teach about giving? So why should we study from the King James Version first and why have many preachers/teachers etc. opted to use other translations and why haven’t they told the people anything about how to study the Bible?

    Follow us as we look at the original language of the Bible. Most of the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew. However there was a small portion that was written in Aramaic sometimes called Syriac. Aramaic was the language spoken by the people and Jesus during his ministry.

    Meanwhile the New Testament was written in Greek. This was the language used in letters and other writings. Greek was prominent throughout the Roman Empire. It was also considered the language of culture. For the record few people can read the ancient languages of the scriptures. Therefore many versions and translations of the Bible have been made. Although translated into nearly every language of the world today the translations continue. Many spoken languages change from generation to generation. However we must be cautious that we do not leave the meaning taken from the original text.

    Translating the Bible is not easy. For example the Hebrew language is written in square black letters. Thus two factors make this task difficult. Hebrew was written without any space separating the word. Secondly the Hebrew alphabet consisted of twenty-two letters, all of them consonants.

    Meanwhile the Greek in which the New Testament was written differs to some degree from the classical Greek of a few centuries earlier.

    VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE

    As Christianity swept throughout the land the Bible is found among people everywhere the wind blows. As Bible scholars uncover other manuscripts likely to contain fewer copying errors a greater understanding is reached and translations are made. Still though the King James Version is by far the most sanctioned source to compare any further translations regardless of so-called new information. Would God allow any scripture necessary for our salvation to stay hidden for centuries?

    The Septuagint comes from the Latin word for seventy and this translation occurred at about the middle of the 3rd. century. The Old Testament was translated into Greek even before there was a New Testament. The centuries preceding the Christian era, the Jews were widely scattered. There was a large settlement of Jews in Alexandria, Egypt. But their native tongue Hebrew was seldom used. Greek was the prominent language. In order that the Hebrew scripture not be lost a group of scholars commissioned by the High Priest in Jerusalem were given authority to make a translation into Greek.

    The Vulgate appeared and with the aid of Pope Damascus the scholar Jerome (A.D. 340?-420) undertook the translation of the Bible into Latin. Latin the official language of the Roman Empire gradually replaced Greek in the Roman Church and became the language of the ritual of the Church.

    Early English Bible History. The Gospel was carried to the land we know as Great Britain as early as the 2nd century. However it was not until the 7th century that Christianity was established there. There were few Bibles all in Latin and hand written. For the English to understand the scriptures translations are para phrases were needed. Thus various versions and translations resulted by a host of people.

    John Wyclif became associated with the first English Version of the entire Bible (1320?-1384). These were translated from the Latin Vulgate. The 2nd version was completed in 1397.

    William Tyndale (1490?-1536) the martyr. Tyndale’s translation of the Pentateuch was published in 1530 and the Book of Jonah in 1531. In 1534 he issued a revision of his translation of Genesis and a revision of the New Testament. "The New Testament Yet Once Again Corrected by William Tyndale," published in 1535, became the bases for all later revisions of the New Testament in English. He was condemned to death on October 6, 1536; he was strangled and then burned at the stake.

    Miles Coverdale (1488-1568) he has the distinction of being the first to prepare and publish a complete printed Bible in English, 1535. Thomas Mathews in 1537 produced a translation that many believed was written by Tyndale. Richard Tavener produced an English Bible in 1539. By 1539 also the Great Bible appeared. Next came the German Bible. Under the Roman Catholic Queen Mary no Bibles were printed in England and the use of the English Bible was banned. It was popular and reprinted at least one hundred and forty times, between 1560 and 1644.

    The Bishops Bible came after the accession of Queen Elizabeth in 1568. The Douai Bible, this translation known as the Douai Version of the Rheims Douai Bible, became the official Roman Catholic Bible in English.

    THE KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE

    James I came to the throne of England n 1603. Being the secular head of the Anglican Church, James was opposed to the various rivals of Anglicanism in England at that time. In January, 1604 the King called a meeting at Hampton Court to discuss religious toleration. During this conference mention was made of the need for a new translation of the Bible. Soon after this conference King James moved to authorize a new version of the Bible. The top Biblical scholars in England were called to do this work. They were free to use any of the preceding translations which they found satisfactory. Their completed work was reviewed by the Bishop, the Privy Council and finally by the King himself. In 1611 the first edition of the King James Version of the Bible was printed and distributed.

    Most Bible scholars agree that this work resulted in a sacred and literary masterpiece against all subsequent translations were measured. For the record the King James Version of the Bible was never officially authorized by the King but won its place in Christendom on its own merits.

    Modern Versions

    Nearly 300 years later before any serious thought was given to making a revision of the King James Version. The reason for the new look at the Bible was prompted by some who thought the discovery of new manuscripts giving additional insight in the history, geography, religions and culture of Bible lands. However all of this had been noted in the secular history books and in the Bible. For the record God has not allowed anything to left out of the King James Version for example that would hamper our salvation.

    The major translations following the Tyndale-King James tradition was the Revised Versions published in England in 1881. In 1901 in the United States the American Standard Version appeared. There are several more recent translations that we will note. The New English Bible published by Oxford and Cambridge University Presses, The New Testament in 1961, the Old Testament in 1970.

    Meanwhile the KJV comes under great debate and scrutiny by various Churches, preachers and teachers. Thus some people that have not a lust for the Word do not understand the essence of translation. They are lost to the importance of reading first from the KJV and then any other study Bible.

    Therefore we will present the following example of Bible study to show just how one can become confused by solely reading and allegedly studying from other versions of the Bible. Thus we will cite a scripture from the KJV, explain the scripture and then cite it from several other sources.

    KJV: Leviticus 19: 28: “Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the Lord.”

    During this time some heathen cultures mutilated their bodies. Sometimes they gashed their bodies as an act of penitence to an idol god. However the law here against printing marks on the flesh also applies to tattooing and piercing. Also see I Corinthians 6: 19 where the same principle is taught regarding printing and marking the body and the use of make-up that makes one look unnatural.

    The following are scripture references from various translations:
    New International Version
    Leviticus 19: 28: Do not cut your bodies from the dead or cut tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the Lord.

    The Promise Contemporary English Version
    Leviticus 19: 27-28: I forbid you to shave any part of your head or beard or to cut and tattoo yourself as a way of worshipping the dead.

    The Jerusalem Bible
    Leviticus 19: 28: You are not to gash your bodies when someone dies, and you are not to tattoo yourselves. I am Yahweh.

    Now for the sake of studying our primary verse. What is the problem? In the KJV we do not see the word tattoo as it did not exist at that time. However the scripture refers to what is later described as tattooing. However the scripture regarding markings and cuttings take into account piercing and utter mutilation of the body.

    Therefore one can get confused for example if they only read from one of the cited versions. First of all they would miss the overall impact of the scripture and limit the meaning of Leviticus 19: 28 to tattooing. We rest our case.

    As I embraced King James
    I then saw a babe in Christ.
    He just had a Book as he
    knew not of any version.

    He thought a Bible was a
    Bible as he also had little
    interest in what the pages
    revealed.

    The babe though that came
    because his mother said come
    soon left and bounced back
    and forth in the world.

    As he visited internment camps
    he still saw many Books and
    never King James until a Black
    radical called him a effeminate man.

    However he still knew nothing
    of the definitive qualities of
    the word translation as it was
    well above his comprehension level.

    He only heard about intellect from
    the echoes of a distant school
    house. But he did know that
    the King was White and also a European.

    So as he wallowed in some Blackness
    he only floated on the top. But some stayed
    in the Church houses every time the
    doors swung open.

    They also just picked up a Book.
    However sometimes the denomination
    or the preacher said another Book
    was easier to read and directed the,

    Congregation there. But did they ever tell
    them of why? Do these same people
    have a Bible dictionary? Do they enjoy
    searching a Bible concordance, commentary,

    And cherish sound study Bibles? But
    where is the Holy Spirit in all of this?
    The Holy Spirit will allow you to see
    through marking and cutting the body.

    You can then see tattoo. It will also
    reveal to you that the body becomes
    mutilated with piercing in things
    private and meant to be unseen.

    Tongues should talk and not balk at
    crude pins attached to the mouth that
    should only be used for eating and
    speech.

    Peace and Love, Carl A. Patton a willing servant of Christ who was sent by our Father writing for the FreedomJournal 4 August 2008 in the year of our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus.

    June 5, 2011 at 12:03 pm |
    • Donna

      Your article only touches on partial truths of history to present your point of view. It slants towards a 'Roman Catholic' theme.

      You insult the martyrs, these were martyred for even printing the bible, so we could read it in our language–who burned them? The Pope and the Roman Catholic Organizational system.

      You leave out facts of our history of the printing of the Holy Scriptures,(bible )and only quote one scripture as an example, there are many new translations that leave out entire phrases and change Gods word.
      If you are going to press on a point you should present all sides and more examples.

      In reading both this article and some articles John Blake writes, I feel an odd similariity in my gutt that makes me sick to my stomach to something a practicing Roman Catholic would write. In other words, I get a creepy sensation

      June 5, 2011 at 12:27 pm |
    • WORD OF JESUS GOD LORD WE LOVE YOU SO MUCH YOU ARE SO GREAT OMG

      TL; DR

      June 5, 2011 at 12:32 pm |
    • jnab

      I like your article, I really do. It's really interesting. What's even more interesting to me is that in your work about bible accuracy you have a number of typos. This one fascinates me the most.
      "For the record God has not allowed anything to left out of the King James Version for example that would hamper our salvation." God may not have allowed anything left out of the Bible but he sure allowed you to leave a word out of your sentence.

      June 5, 2011 at 12:36 pm |
  17. Nacho1

    True.............it is not in the bible just as much of our bible is not in the Dead Sea Scrolls...........we do fantasize a bit.............yet there are passages in the bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls that we never repeat nor read about.............In Genesis there is an issue maybe one of our readers can help me with...........where God refers to Adam and Eve as THEM and He says..................they are not like US and WE are not like them.........that is why they must never have the tree of knowledge........what does God mean by US and by WE? He is not speaking in the singular such as I................answer this for me.............

    June 5, 2011 at 12:02 pm |
    • GK

      Judaism wasn't always a monotheistic religion... That's where it comes from...

      June 5, 2011 at 12:14 pm |
    • Jean

      I've wondered about the "US" and "WE" issue also. Who is God talking to? Other gods? Also, the first commandment states "thou shalt have no other gods before me." That's an odd statement. It doesn't say that there are no other gods, just that Moses God needs to come first. If this God should come first, does that mean that people can have other gods behind the first one. Who are these other gods? Why didn't the first commandment just state that there are no other gods? Curious.

      June 5, 2011 at 12:23 pm |
    • Mike

      For Nacho1,

      If you are sincere about your question concerning Genesis 1:26-27, God's reference to Himself as being a plural deity, not singular, you will visit the nearest Church of God, World Mission Society. They are the only Christian Church testifying boldly of God Elohim (God the Father & God the Mother) in these times. They also have a website that plays biblical testimony http://www.newsongsradio.com or http://www.wfdu.com (NYC's 89.1 FM) and new songs answering your question. If you truly have questions and are serious about studying the root of our Creator, God Elohim, please contact your nearest Church of God.

      June 5, 2011 at 12:35 pm |
  18. Lawrence Fassler

    Mr. K seems to think that all things that question his faith are idiotic or irrelevant, when in fact the author's point was how many people adopt Bible-like phrases in expressing their sentiments in order to put a religious gloss on their point of view. Precisely because "God" never shows himself or makes her opinions clear to us humans, it's clear that much of religious posturing is just a game, a war of priests who pull their opinions out of thin air. Religion can serve a useful purpose in helping people to realize the best parts of themselves, but it also can be, like patriotism, the last refuge of a scoundrel who has no better arguments to offer.

    June 5, 2011 at 12:01 pm |
  19. Al

    who cares its mostly fantasy anyway.

    June 5, 2011 at 12:01 pm |
    • HOD

      Fantasy that due to a human need to belong (Maslow) and please authority (Milgram) will get you killed.

      June 5, 2011 at 12:20 pm |
  20. Molly

    Most likely the wise men did not visit a baby Jesus, the Bible says he was a young child. Jesus was probably around 2 years old when the wise men brought their gifts. In the grand scheme of things it really doesn't matter. Jesus was not born December 25th but we use that day to celebrate his birth, it's just tradition.

    June 5, 2011 at 12:01 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke and Eric Marrapodi with daily contributions from CNN's worldwide newsgathering team.