Saturday, October 26, 2013

1 Chron 12:32 report, 115: On the Jamaican New Testament vs the Queen James Bible, and on rising debates on alternative interpretations and translations of scriptures regarding homosexual behaviour

The Jamaican NT (HT: Amazon)
Earlier this week, while I was in a local shop looking for a high quality compact fluorescent light bulb, I chanced to hear a debate on the local radio station ZJB here in Montserrat, about the new translation of the Bible into the emerging Jamaican Language, more usually known as Patois or Patwa, or "Jamaicanese" or more formally, Jamaican Creole. (Actually what was translated is the New Testament, or -- in the language itself: Di Jamiekan Nyuu Testiment. Online, chapter by chapter with audio, here on.)

Someone -- understandably -- was very concerned indeed as to why millions had been spent on making a translation that was in a language that by and large, people could not even read. 

(Jamaica Talk is an oral tradition that originally developed on the plantation in the days before English itself was fully standardised. It is currently best understood as it is heard, not by trying to make out how it is spelled when it has been put on paper. Especially, when a more consistent phonetic rendering of sounds into letters is used than we will find in standard written English! [Do that to standard written English and it will look very strange, too.])

 I found the discussion interesting, but realised that it would be wise to add some balance. 

I therefore borrowed use of a phone and called the studio. I found out that this was a new show by a former student, and was invited to call back after a news break. So, I called back, and we had quite a lively discussion, complete with a call-in from someone who seems to have parked her car to phone in, and with another journalist joining the host in the studio.  (This was not really a call-in show, but in a community like this, things are a bit less formal. And of course, even when names are not explicitly used, everybody knows who is calling, by recognising the voice.)

My basic point was that translating the Bible or a major part of it like the NT into a new language is a breakthrough recognition of the language that standardises its alphabet, spelling, grammar etc and opens the door to a new literature, primary school education in the real language of the people and more. For instance, that points to education reforms  that recognise the real mother tongue of the mass of the Jamaican people, with possibilities for a breakthrough.  Just so, we may notice from a news article on the London, UK launch event that was held a year ago:
The Revd Courtney Stewart, General Secretary of the Bible Society of the West Indies said, ‘This New Testament will achieve a kind of engagement of our people with the Word of God in a way that has never happened before.
‘There will be transformation in people’s lives. For the first time they will have an understanding of God’s Word.’
He revealed how controversial the translation had been both in Jamaica and in the UK, as critics claimed that Jamaican Patois was not a language in which the Bible could be written.
But he said, ‘At the Bible Society we believe that everyone has a right to have access to the Word of God in their own language.
‘The time has come for Jamaican people to have the Word of God in their own language, in their mother tongue,’ he said.
In the Jamaican New Testament when the Angel Gabriel announces to the Virgin Mary that she is pregnant with Jesus, he tells her that he has ‘nyuuz’ which will ‘mek yu wel api’.
The familiar Christmas reading ‘Behold a virgin shall be with child’, is translated as ‘Lisn op! Di uman we neehn sliip wid no man ago get biebi.’
And When the Wise Men come to give their gifts to the baby Jesus – or ‘Jiizas’ – they tell Herod that they want to give him ‘rispek’.
- See more at: http://www.biblesociety.org.uk/news/jamaican-new-testament-launched/#sthash.wdcsL25t.dpuf
 The Revd Courtney Stewart, General Secretary of the Bible Society of the West Indies said, ‘This New Testament will achieve a kind of engagement of our people with the Word of God in a way that has never happened before.

‘There will be transformation in people’s lives. For the first time they will have an understanding of God’s Word.’

He revealed how controversial the translation had been both in Jamaica and in the UK, as critics claimed that Jamaican Patois was not a language in which the Bible could be written.

But he said, ‘At the Bible Society we believe that everyone has a right to have access to the Word of God in their own language.

‘The time has come for Jamaican people to have the Word of God in their own language, in their mother tongue,’ he said. [Cf. Jamaica's Gleaner report on the launch in Jamaica, here.]
The Revd Courtney Stewart, General Secretary of the Bible Society of the West Indies said, ‘This New Testament will achieve a kind of engagement of our people with the Word of God in a way that has never happened before.
‘There will be transformation in people’s lives. For the first time they will have an understanding of God’s Word.’
He revealed how controversial the translation had been both in Jamaica and in the UK, as critics claimed that Jamaican Patois was not a language in which the Bible could be written.
But he said, ‘At the Bible Society we believe that everyone has a right to have access to the Word of God in their own language.
‘The time has come for Jamaican people to have the Word of God in their own language, in their mother tongue,’ he said.
In the Jamaican New Testament when the Angel Gabriel announces to the Virgin Mary that she is pregnant with Jesus, he tells her that he has ‘nyuuz’ which will ‘mek yu wel api’.
The familiar Christmas reading ‘Behold a virgin shall be with child’, is translated as ‘Lisn op! Di uman we neehn sliip wid no man ago get biebi.’
And When the Wise Men come to give their gifts to the baby Jesus – or ‘Jiizas’ – they tell Herod that they want to give him ‘rispek’.
- See more at: http://www.biblesociety.org.uk/news/jamaican-new-testament-launched/#sthash.wdcsL25t.dpuf
The Revd Courtney Stewart, General Secretary of the Bible Society of the West Indies said, ‘This New Testament will achieve a kind of engagement of our people with the Word of God in a way that has never happened before.
‘There will be transformation in people’s lives. For the first time they will have an understanding of God’s Word.’
He revealed how controversial the translation had been both in Jamaica and in the UK, as critics claimed that Jamaican Patois was not a language in which the Bible could be written.
But he said, ‘At the Bible Society we believe that everyone has a right to have access to the Word of God in their own language.
‘The time has come for Jamaican people to have the Word of God in their own language, in their mother tongue,’ he said.
In the Jamaican New Testament when the Angel Gabriel announces to the Virgin Mary that she is pregnant with Jesus, he tells her that he has ‘nyuuz’ which will ‘mek yu wel api’.
The familiar Christmas reading ‘Behold a virgin shall be with child’, is translated as ‘Lisn op! Di uman we neehn sliip wid no man ago get biebi.’
And When the Wise Men come to give their gifts to the baby Jesus – or ‘Jiizas’ – they tell Herod that they want to give him ‘rispek’.
- See more at: http://www.biblesociety.org.uk/news/jamaican-new-testament-launched/#sthash.wdcsL25t.dpuf
Indeed, now that we have standard spelling, pronunciation, vocabulary and grammar, we will now be able to learn -- yes, learn -- how to read the Patois. 

(I have tried it and it takes some effort to read until you become used to the new patterns of spelling. I strongly advise one and all to get the MP3 audio CD! But, I notice, the CD is not properly promoted. [I did see a Kindle version at Amazon], and that there is apparently no Wikipedia page. I hope there is a Twitter account and a Facebook page, and something on Reddit etc. Somebody should start a blog too.

Making such a translation also advances the study of language itself. 

That is why, it is no accident that Wycliffe Bible Translators is closely connected to the Summer Institute of Linguistics. (And yes, I know, terms have been updated: Wycliffe Global Alliance, and SIL International, but I am using more familiar terms.)

 Now, one of the concerns that came up in the discussion was this, from Revelations:
Rev 22: 18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. [ESV]
This text of course primarily refers to the Book of Revelations, but it is -- for good reason -- commonly seen as applying to the canon of Scripture as a whole. The idea here, is DON'T TAMPER. That is at eternal peril.

 Likewise, we find in 2 Peter 3, where Peter speaks up for his colleague-apostle, Paul, warning against the equally spiritually perilous companion-problem to scripture-tampering, namely scripture-twisting:
2 Pet 3:15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. 18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen. [ESV]
In that context, my response was the obvious one: responsible translation is not scripture tampering. 

Indeed, in the NT, the apostles often cite not the original Hebrew OT text, but what we could call the "King James Version" of that day, the Septuagint translation into Koine Greek, the common -- some would suggest, bastardised -- Greek used in the First Century. (And likewise, responsible informed Bible Study or pro-grade technical exegesis that soundly interprets, explains and applies scripture is not scripture-twisting.)

 For a couple of days thereafter, people kept bringing up the lunch time discussion on ZJB to me as I walked about. In one particular case, someone drew my attention to a much more serious concern than the question of translating the Bible into Jamaica's Patois.

 He said, go look up The Queen James version.

 The what?

 The Queen James Version.

 I did. 

And in so doing, I learned the following, here from the Amazon promo blurb: 
"The Queen James Bible is based on The King James Bible, edited to prevent homophobic misinterpretation . . . . Anti-LGBT Bible interpretations commonly cite only eight verses in the Bible that they interpret to mean homosexuality is a sin; Eight verses in a book of thousands!

The Queen James Bible seeks to resolve interpretive ambiguity in the Bible as it pertains to homosexuality: We edited those eight verses in a way that makes homophobic interpretations impossible. "
What is going on here? 

Unfortunately, it seems, scripture tampering based on irresponsible handling of translation and interpretation, cf. details here and here.

 This puts a much broader problem on the table, however. 

Is it true or justified to claim that the traditional understanding of:
a:  the story of Divine destructive judgement of Sodom and Gomorrah (for what has long since been known as "sodomy"), or 

 b: the designation of a man lying with a man as he would lie with a woman in Leviticus as an abomination liable to capital punishment, or 

c: the statement in Rom 1 that both female and male homosexual lusts and behaviours are against the creation-rooted nature and evident purpose of human sexuality, or 

d: the declaration that homosexuality is next to things like thieves or swindlers or kidnappers as utterly incompatible with godliness
. . . are merely reflections of hate and bigotry-driven "homophobia" rather than a true and fair rendering of the underlying Hebrew or Greek text?

 As I thought on this, I felt that a good place to begin is Jesus' remarks in answer to a question on Divorce, which sets marriage and sexuality in Creation-order context:
Mt 19: 3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” 

4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” 

7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” 

8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” [ESV]
In short, Jesus points us back to the Creation order for human family and sexuality as the plumb-line standard for addressing any practice that affects marriage, family and sexuality. At the beginning God made us male and female, to be man and wife so that when their son is grown up, he as a man in turn would leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife, and unite with her, closing the generational cycle. This order, as established by God, is not to be disturbed, at peril of God's judgement. Starting here, with the easy divorce and remarriage game -- which is actually a more insidious and widespread problem in our day than the one we will need to focus on.

 Likewise, Paul is quite plain in Romans 1, responsibly translated:
Rom 1: 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. [ESV]
In short, the apostle quite directly teaches -- whether or no we want to accept it --  that rampant  homosexuality in a culture is a sign that that culture has in large part turned its back on God and on the evidence of creation without and our hearts, minds and consciences within that jointly point us to him and to our duty under him. As a part of such turning away from God and replacing truth with lie, we lose control of sexuality, and some go so far as to turn to dishonourable passions and unnarural sexual relations. Which, we may then try to "justify" in our en-darkened minds as acceptable and worthy of approval.

 Resemblance to our civilisation in our time, is not coincidental.

For, images made to look like men, birds, reptiles etc and surrounded by idolatrous stories will have the same effect, whether we speak of the pagan temples of old:


. . . or whether we label similar images as scientific reconstructions, put them in museums or textbooks and use them under the colours of science, to erect stories of how we came to be by blind chance and mechanical necessity, from goo to you by way of the zoo [cf. discussions here (short, "simple") and here on], as someone aptly summarised:


But, someone will say, don't we see in Matt 19 how Moses gave permission for divorce, doesn't that give us room to change rules on sexual behaviour to meet the times and advances in scientific understanding? 
[NB: Cf  here for a significant corrective to this last, one that deserves a much wider audience than it seems to have.]
Yes, Moshe did provide regulations for the already existing institution of divorce, for the hardness of men's hearts in response to existing violation of the marital covenant through adultery.

 The prophet Malachi pithily sums up the true divine attitude to this manifestation of the sinful hardness of our hearts:
Malachi 2: 13 And this second thing you do. You cover the LORD's altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because he no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor from your hand. 

14 But you say, “Why does he not?” Because the LORD was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. 

15 Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth. 

16 “For the man who does not love his wife but divorces her, says the LORD, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless.”  [ESV]
Yes, God is gracious and forgives and cleanses us if we repent, but we must never ever make the error of thinking divorce and adultery mean but little to him.

 But, there is no similar precedent whatsoever for homosexual behaviour or similarly perverse conduct such as bestiality etc. Instead we read quite plainly in the OT, after a long list of primarily sexually oriented prohibitions:
Lev 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. 23 And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion.

 24 “Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am driving out before you have become unclean, 25 and the land became unclean, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you shall keep my statutes and my rules and do none of these abominations, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you 27 (for the people of the land, who were before you, did all of these abominations, so that the land became unclean), 28 lest the land vomit you out when you make it unclean, as it vomited out the nation that was before you. [ESV]
That is, gross and widespread sexual misconduct is a major factor in bringing down the destructive judgement of God on a nation It is thus no surprise to see, among other civil penalties for such misconduct in the coveantal nation of Israel (one where adultery was a capital offense):
Lev 20: 13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. 14 If a man takes a woman and her mother also, it is depravity; he and they shall be burned with fire, that there may be no depravity among you. 15 If a man lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal. 16 If a woman approaches any animal and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. [ESV]
In the New Testament, we read a redemptive element (and no civil law rulings), but there is no watering down whatsoever of the seriousness of the sins involved:
1 Cor 6: 9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality
[= ούτε (oute) nor + αρσενοκοίται (arsenokoitai) homosexuals -- Paul here seems to have coined or used a Hebraic Greek term that has no earlier record in Greek texts currently in hand, by taking the Septuagint rendering of "men lying with men as with women" in Lev 18:22 and joining them as a single word, so there is no reasonable doubt as to his meaning. That meaning is of course exactly what the C19 coinage, "homosexuality" means. ESV also joins in  μαλακοί (malakoi) soft -- effeminate, i.e the passive male homosexual partner (in those days usually a youth) in the rendering. The NET Bible aptly renders: "passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals . . . "],
10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. [ESV. ]
How then should we interpret say Gen 18 - 19? 

 Is that passage a case of inhospitable action or attempted rape as an expression of such, sothat other homosexual acts between the consenting are not disapproved by God ? 

Actually, there is indeed an obvious element of lack of decent hospitality and even of attempted rape involved. 

But at the same time, there is no doubt that the intended sex acts were homosexual and that they were not approved by God. Indeed, in light of Leviticus 18 as cited already -- part and parcel of the same Pentateuch, it is clear that the fate of Sodom was a capital example of the very land vomiting forth a people who approved of and widely indulged in sexual perversity. In this case, it seems by volcanic eruption -- sulphur or brimstone (doubtless with other hot lava bombs . . . ) being erupted and falling from the sky that may also have involved bitumen and similar petroleum deposits in the area that are mentioned in Gen 14, erasing the cities of the plain through a never to be forgotten cataclysm of fire and destruction.

 The land itself literally vomited them forth, at God's command.

 Just as, in a later day -- over a thousand years later, Israel would go into exile in Babylon for refusing to heed the word of God and smaller corrective judgements in the face of its own national sins. A further sobering warning to all nations, including those of our day.

So, we find Jude, our Lord's brother:
Jude 1:3 Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. 4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

5 Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved[c] a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. 6 And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day— 7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire,[d] serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

8 Yet in like manner these people also, relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones. [ESV]

Yes, this is the stormy North side of the scriptures, but that does not mean that it is not a valid and accurately translated warning from God that we neglect at our peril. 

 Whether or not it may be politically correct and appealing in a given day, scripture tampering and scripture twisting are at our eternal peril and that of those misled thereby. Which is what marks such as utterly different from responsible translation and distribution of the scriptures such as now in the Jamaican language, or sound Bible Study, teaching and -- at professional level -- exegesis. 

 Let us find a positive note to close on:
2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved,[c] a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth . . . . 

14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom[a] you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God[b] may be complete, equipped for every good work. [ESV]
And so, let us be eager to learn, study, preach and live by the blessed Word, in season and out of season. END
_________________

F/N: Since pornography and perversion are evidently a rising challenge across the region, let me link some onward readings that may prove helpful to the troubled or concerned, including some help for those caught up in a swirling current of same sex attractions in light of the twelve step addiction recovery approach:
Posted by at