The American Spectator : Translating the Word

Text Size

Translating the Word

By Roger Scruton from the April 2011 issue

The 400th anniversary of the King James Bible has received only muted celebrations in the English-speaking world.

The 400th anniversary of the King James Bible has received only muted celebrations in the English-speaking world, and no celebrations at all elsewhere. This book, which shaped the syntax, the imagery, and the wisdom of everyday discourse among speakers of English, and which has probably been more frequently quoted than any other source, including the Greek and Hebrew originals, is now receding behind the screen on which our ephemeral messages are scribbled. But the history of the English Bible is of great importance to us today, since it reminds us that our civilization is built upon translations. The Septuagint, the Vulgate, the Wulfila Bible (the fourth-century translation into the Gothic language), the Wycliffe Bible, and the translations of early reformers — the Czech Králice Bible, Luther’s Bible, the Geneva Bible, and the seminal translation by William Tyndale on which the King James translation is ultimately based — all these have brought with them profound and far-reaching changes in the social, political, and religious lives of ordinary people in Christian Europe.

Every new translation has offered a promise of power to some and a threat to the power of others. A society governed by a privileged class of priests and clerks, whose authority derives from a text that only they can read, will be suspicious of translations of that text, and inclined to forbid them. Wycliffe survived only because he was protected by the powerful John of Gaunt, and Tyndale was burned at the stake in Bruges. Still, by the time of King James I versions of the Bible in English were available in every church, and it was no longer a threat to any vested interest to authorize a new and complete translation. How lucky we English-speakers were, that this translation should have been made in the wake of the Elizabethan dramatists, at a time when the English language was at its most muscular and taut, when it could be applied to matters both earthly and heavenly and at once give a fully imagined account of them, gripped in what Gerard Manley Hopkins was to call the “native thew and sinew” of the English tongue. All subsequent translations, set beside this version, are on a downhill path toward banality, and by the time of the New English Bible (completed 1970) it is fair to say that the immediacy and urgency of the King James Bible had been more or less dissolved in watery literal-mindedness.

It is not just the literary merits of the King James Bible that recommend it, however. This was the Bible that the Pilgrim Fathers brought with them across the Atlantic, that the Methodist riders took around the farmsteads and cabins of rural America, the Bible that the merchant adventurers carried to India, Australia, and Africa, the Bible that provided the texts of Handel’s oratorios and which inspired the hymns of Isaac Watts and Charles Wesley. It is the Bible that was planted in the depths of the English-speaking soul during the crucial centuries when the sphere of English-speaking freedom was formed. I doubt that you can understand the motives of the early settlers of America without it. It gave them the names of their towns and villages, the names of their children, the maxims of their daily life and the routines and rituals of their sparse forms of enjoyment. They fought and cursed, made love and sermons, in the language of the King James Bible, and everywhere about us we see the difference that this has made. Ask yourself how it came about that a suburb of Washington, D.C. should bear the beautiful Hebrew name of Bethesda and you will unearth a history that is dependent at almost every point on the King James Bible and its immediate sources in Tyndale and Myles Coverdale.

BUT THERE ARE OTHER and equally interesting ideas suggested by the history of biblical translation. When Christendom was first shaping itself from within the Roman Empire it was by means of the Vulgate, St. Jerome’s Latin version of the sacred texts. Those early Christians did not doubt that their most authoritative text, the one which contained the most direct messages yet received from God to man, had been translated from other languages, spoken by other people, in whom God had, for reasons of His own, chosen to confide. A kind of openness to the world and to other ways of life was the natural consequence of this. And this openness has characterized the Christian religion ever since.

I may be wrong, but it does seem to me that this marks out an important cultural difference between Christian civilization and Islam. Ever since the 11th-century triumph of the Asharite school of Islam it has been orthodox to believe that the Koran cannot be translated, that the surahs were literally spoken, as we find them, to the Prophet, and that any attempt to represent their meaning in another language would falsify God’s word. Versions of the Koran in other languages are therefore routinely described as “interpretations.” A devout Muslim may learn to recite the Koran in Arabic without knowing, except in rough outline, what it means. And it is only Arabic speakers, who today form less than 20 percent of Muslims, who know what nonsense it is to say that this text cannot be translated. Of course, something is lost in translation — in particular the taut, breathless syntax of the original, and the poetic rhythms of the rhyming prose. But then, something is lost in every translation. And as our Bible teaches us, something may also be gained, and the gain may be more than the loss. It is perhaps true of St. John’s Gospel that the Greek original is inferior to Tyndale as literature. But the reader of Tyndale will discover exactly what the writer of the Gospel intended to say.

The official non-translatability of the Koran has had important political consequences. The mullahs and ayatollahs have been able to assert a kind of monopoly over the sacred text, to withhold it and themselves from public scrutiny, and thereby to establish theocratic forms of government in which they hold power in God’s name. The downgrading of secular authority and secular law, the claim to absolute and incorrigible justification, follow from this as a matter of course. This is what we have seen in Iran and will no doubt see in Egypt should the Muslim Brotherhood finally fulfill its ambition of ruling that country, its Christian minority included, according to the shari’ah.

The translatability of the Bible has had equally far-reaching political consequences. When the nation-states of Europe began to emerge after the Reformation, it was partly because people were beginning to see that law and language are far more reliable criteria of political loyalty than dynasty and religion, since law and language are instruments of peace, whereas dynasties and religions are always at war. The translations of the Bible brought the Christian religion to heel, contained it within the borders of the linguistic community, and overcame the medieval orthodoxy that, in matters of religion, the real authorities were situated elsewhere and outside the kingdom. They helped to domesticate the religious impulse and who can doubt, looking back at the wars of religion, that Europeans needed, at the time, to identify themselves in some other and more peaceful way than the way of faith?

TRANSLATION OPENS THE WAY to a new kind of scholarship. Granted that the texts we hold sacred originated in Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, and Greek, what do we know about the people who first wrote them down, and how can we be sure what they meant by the words they wrote? During the late 18th century this question gave rise to the science of biblical hermeneutics, which led the universities of Europe toward a new kind of skepticism. It became clear that the ancient texts belonged to specific social and political contexts, and that they were not necessarily aimed at the whole of humanity. People began to assign precise dates to them, to draw a map of Jewish history, and to distinguish which parts of the Gospels told the authentic story of Christ’s mission, and which were later fabrications.

This scholarship has made it difficult to think of the Bible as God’s word — that is to say, as the word spoken to prophets and others by God. At best the Bible consists of words inspired by God, words which might have been marred and distorted in the process of recording them, and in which the element of inspiration and the element of fabrication might be hard to unravel. (Think of the bloodthirsty book of Joshua, for instance, and the story of Rahab, about whom the best can be said is that she was a whore: did God have a hand in that?) It is impossible that the Bible should now have, for the educated Christian, the kind of authority that the Koran has for the Muslim. The Bible is a text to be discussed and interrogated, whose message does not remain entirely the same from generation to generation, but which responds to the changing circumstances of those who consult it. And one proof of its inspired nature is that it always does respond, that it offers thoughts, arguments, words, and guidance in all the changing scenes of life — including the changing scenes of our species-life. We can no longer point to the Bible as the final authority in any disputed question. But the Bible is as much a help to us as ever it was to the Pilgrim Fathers. It has persuaded us to take responsibility for our actions, and not to bequeath our problems to humorless old men in beards who pretend that only they know how to read the sacred text.

That makes it the more sad that the King James Bible, which raised us to a higher level of seriousness, should have slipped behind the screen, taking with it so much of the English-speaking soul.

About the Author

Roger Scruton is a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. His latest book, How to Think Seriously About the Planet: The Case for an Environmental Conservatism, has just been published by Oxford University Press.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (133) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

PaulyD| 4.22.11 @ 7:41AM

Mr. Scruton,

You were doing fine until your second to last paragraph. Us true believers believe the Bible IS the word of God and it is how he speaks to mankind. We are fans of the King James version because it is, as you describe, the best English translation of the original Greek and Hebrew texts.

Unfortunately by calling it "at best...inspired" you have downgraded its inerrancy. This common belief is why the Churches are such a mess today and Christianity has become just another "religion" as far as most people are concerned. If one does not truly believe the Bible to be God's spoken word and the translation to be inerrant, what is the point in paying any attention to it?

Phil| 4.22.11 @ 9:12AM

Right on Brother

Ryan| 4.22.11 @ 9:45AM

A definitive claim CAN be made that is has occasional translation issues, though none egregious.

It HAS been changed - several times - since its origination, and better Hebrew and Greek documents have come about that have clarified the issue.

There are some serious theological issues with KJV-onlyism and the belief that the English translation is the "best" one. There were Christians before it came out, and Christians after, and all believed that Salvation is through Christ's redemptive work on the Cross, no matter how it is translated.

PaulyD| 4.22.11 @ 10:46AM

I am not a KJV purist in the sense it is better to read other translations of God's word than none at all.

Ryan| 4.22.11 @ 11:33AM

Gotcha. I didn't quite think that you were, but may have jumped the gun a bit there.

The KJV is the best-written (prose-wise) translation, I think, and has greatly served its purpose.

It's a good thing, though, that there really aren't that many KJV-onlyists out there. They just have a loud voice.

Edward White| 4.22.11 @ 10:00AM

The Bible is a cacophony of voices and perspectives, often in conflict with one another.

As for the Easter story, for example, there are mix-ups concerning who saw what after Jesus's resurrection. And did Judas die twice, once by suicide and once by divine disgorge? And so on . . .

We don't know, and will never know, many details about the history of the development of biblical literature. No doubt there have been countless hands, scribal and editorial, involved in writing, editing, copying, and circulating the various versions of various texts that eventually were brought together into a canonical collection. Nor do we know very much for certain about the ancient life situations—ritual practices, oral traditions, legal systems—in which these texts had their beginnings. Nor do we know everything about the complex process by which the canons of Jewish and Christian Scriptures took form. What we do know for certain is that the literature now in our Bibles was thousands of years in the making.

How can the Bible be God's infallible book when virtually nothing is asserted someplace that is not called into question or undermined elsewhere?

O, ye sages of AmSpec, please answer my question.

Rita S.| 4.22.11 @ 10:14AM

Good point, Mr. White.

It's the contradictions, the horrific cruelty, and the scientific inacuracies that made me doubt the Bible was God's infallible book.

However, I'm a church-goer. I enjoy the sociability, the music, the dignified service. I really do value the "fellowship."

But I do not accept the Bible as God's word, and I never will. However, I will not express this belief in my Sunday school class. Can you imagine the reactions?

Tom from Tennesee| 4.22.11 @ 10:17AM

Rita, if you're a Baptist, you'd better keep your thoughts on the bible to yourself. They would run you out of town if they knew what you believe.
You can't mess with those bible-thumpin' Baptists.

Rita S.| 4.22.11 @ 10:22AM

Thankfully, I am not a Baptist.
I belong to a denomination that is a little more civilized, a tad bit more educated.

Ryan| 4.22.11 @ 10:30AM

What is the "sociability, the music, the dignified service" even WORTH if Christ's life, death, and resurrection have no meaning?

I think that I have posed the question to you several times, without answer.

What is the Gospel?

Tom from Tennesee| 4.22.11 @ 10:48AM

Ryan,

Not every Christian believes Christ literally rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. We are not the kind of Christians that "believe" for the sake of a REWARD--the pie in the sky by and by.

On the other hand, we are Christians who put Christs good works, His humane philosophy, His love and compassion above any promise of an afterlife.

We try to live Christ-like lives because of the good that comes from it, not for the REWARD.

Rita S.| 4.22.11 @ 11:03AM

Thanks, Tom,

This is the kind of Christian I try to be. Wouldn't the world be better if there were more of us?

o p| 4.22.11 @ 11:09AM

Yes, Rita, the world would be better if Christians attempted to be more Christ-like in their behavior towards their brothers and sisters.

I am appalled at the number of Christians I know who expect a pay-off for their confessing their belief in Christ's slavation. That pay-off is the carrot on the stick.

It's the reward that is motivating them. Were it not for the promise of "life eternal," these so-called Christians--superficial Christians-- would desert the church in droves.

Ryan| 4.22.11 @ 11:39AM

I agree with you on the conduct matter; however, if you knew how many Conservative Christians who are nice, loving, giving, etc that are really out there, you'd probably change your mind some. I suspect you've just experienced the worst, or simply because we stand our ground on certain matters that we are somehow mean-spirited or something.

That being said, the Eternal Life matter is pretty explicitly ingrained in what Christ has done. It's part of His promise (the whole "Book of Life" thing in Revelation). We can't glorify God in eternity if we're dead and gone.

Nothing Christ said points us to do good for goodness' sake. There HAS to be a greater purpose, because "good" has to have a meaning behind it, other wise it's just "doing stuff that makes me feel good about myself."

bill | 4.22.11 @ 12:49PM

rita and tom ... i am curious as to how you define what it means to be chritian or a christian ... as i believe the bible teaches it is a person who has been born into God's family by the power of the Holy Spirit and has eternal life starting the moment that person's sin/satan blinded eyes are opened and they choose to trust in the Lord Jesus Christ who died for our sins and is living today ,,, how would you define christian???

Dr. Kawatski| 4.22.11 @ 1:03PM

The Biblical account of Christ's resurection is the evolution of a legend, the evolution of a myth.

The earliest Christian community DID believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead "spiritually."

But the earliest Christian community did NOT believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead "bodily." This is supported by the facts from the history and writings of the early Christians.

The Christian community then went through a process, an evolutionary process of thought regarding the resurrection of Jesus until about a half century had passed, and then, and only then, do we find these fantastic embellishments and exaggerations in the thoughts of the early Christians of a "bodily" resurrected Jesus.

Ryan| 4.22.11 @ 1:14PM

Maybe if you listen to the Gnostics, who Paul wrote against consistently. Myth/legend takes far too long to develop, and the writings of the gnostics are found wanting in more ways than one (particularly in their core theology which denied that the Flesh could be good at all).

The Apostles wouldn't have gone to their deaths the way they did for someone who didn't "rebuild the Temple" in three days.

It's not "fantastic" to believe that Christ rose from the dead if all the rest of His claims to divinity are true.

Margie| 4.22.11 @ 7:33PM

To the trolls:

What is the importance of Jesus saying this:

"Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live." Jn. 11:25.

David T| 4.23.11 @ 3:48PM

Dr. K--The NT clearly supports the bodily resurrection of Christ. Most of the books and letters of the NT were written within the 30-year period following Christ's death. There were plenty of people alive during that time who actually saw the risen Christ, just as there were plenty of people alive who could have refuted any stories of a bodily resurrection, but there is no contemporaneous record of such denial. The gnostic gospels, which you seem to be relying on, grew out of the dualism ("spirit good, matter bad") of Marcion and others writing near the middle of the 2nd century, more than a hundred years after Christ died. Read the NT and compare it to the gnostic gospels. Even a man confused by too much learning can tell which rings true and which is the stuff of legend.

vince| 4.24.11 @ 10:27PM

The earliest account of the resurrection is that of St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, written between 50 and 58 AD. Paul was converted within about 3 years of Christ's crucifixion. He, no doubt learned of the events surrounding Christ's resurrection at that time. So, the idea the belief in the resurrection came about as a result of a long process of evolving belief is simply uninformed and ignorant of the facts.

Ryan| 4.22.11 @ 11:18AM

My argument is not about the reward (though, at the core, I doubt anyone would be a Christian were it not for the promise of Eternal Life)...and we don't get a reward for merely being good, in any case (which many Christians may tell you).

As Isaiah said, our righteousness is "as filthy rags." Nothing that Christ said makes mention that sin gets balanced out by good works - His very actions and words actually speak to the opposite. Our sin condemns us. Period. It MUST be judged.

Without Christ's death, burial, and resurrection, all the nice stuff we do for people has no real meaning. Practically every other religion - and people who don't have one - preach the exact same thing.

Christ claimed explicitly in Luke 19:10 "For (G)the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost."

AFTER that, Zaccheus was changed. Not before. AFTER Zaccheus repented, he turned to doing good. AFTER Zaccheus came to Christ, he sought to enact social justice.

Sin must be dealt with, and that is the weakness of your position. You simply appear to look at all the nice stuff Christ did, and ignore His very words.

Walkthetalk| 4.22.11 @ 12:39PM

To Tom, Rita, and o p,
The problem with leftist Christianity is that it is incorrect. You wrote (or agreed with), “we are Christians who put Christ’s good works, His humane philosophy, His love and compassion above any promise of an afterlife. We try to live Christ-like lives because of the good that comes from it….” A lofty ambition, but the problem with this statement is that it denies everything the Bible says. The whole Bible is about Christ and his effort on your behalf; it’s not about you and your work. Let me be clear, no matter how hard you try you cannot do Christ-like things without Christ in your hearts. Your statement denies that Christ is alive.

The Bible reveals that there are two kinds of people in this world: those who think they rule their own lives and those who are ruled by Christ. These are spiritual conditions. The first group is actually ruled by sin. Sin means to turn away from God; to rely on self. Sin causes people to deny that Christ is alive, and it forces people to believe that they have to do his work because it is a good philosophy, and that they can actually do the “good” Jesus did. Sin actually is a killer. It kills all who are enthralled by it. The only way to be free from its deceptive and insidious clutches is to repent, turn to Jesus. In him you will find life. Yes, “in him.” The Bible made it clear just what was required to salvage humanity, and how God would do it. It says basically, you must be in Christ and have him in you or you have no life either here or in the hereafter. It is a spiritual condition. Just like you have to have air in you and be in air, or a fish has to be in water and have water in it, so you have to be in Christ and have Christ in you to have real life. In this condition the Holy Spirit can and will perform in you “Christ’s good works” and you will express “His love and compassion.” Love is not a human trait; it is the nature of God and when you are “in” Christ God will pour it into your hearts. Only in Christ Jesus can any “good” come from your efforts. Know this; Christ is not a philosophy for life. Christ Jesus IS life! Without Jesus in your hearts you are treading down the broad path to death. God is a God of choice, and he gives you the choice of which path to follow. He says choose life. He loves you enough to honor your choice, even if you choose a dead end. Choose wisely.

Susan Milligan| 4.22.11 @ 1:12PM

Walkthetalk,

Having read your lengthy post, I think I would prefer to have Tom, Rita, and o p as my neighbors rather than you.

I don't think Christ cares what you choose to believe in the Bible (and not believe, if it is too preposterous). I think Christ would be more concerned with how you treat your neighbor.

Enough said.

Ryan| 4.22.11 @ 1:16PM

It's a one-two street. If we are alive in Christ, then we treat our neighbor properly.

If we don't, we don't have Christ.

And if we treat our neighbor "properly" without Christ, our sins still weigh us down, because they are not washed.

o p| 4.22.11 @ 2:01PM

Ryan, you seen to be obsessed with sin.

You must be one hell of a sinner? This is what I infer from your writing.

As for me, I don't have the energy to sin, even if I wanted to.

Ryan| 4.22.11 @ 3:02PM

We're ALL "helluva sinners." That's the problem with us.

If we're not sinners, then why did Christ die?

skip| 4.22.11 @ 3:23PM

Ryan, you are not in a discussion with Christians. People who do not believe Christ was bodily resurrected aren't Christians.

ejp| 4.23.11 @ 12:07AM

Such people are not worth calling "Christians" if they're so convinced in their own minds that Christ was a liar and a fraud when it came to the matter of His Resurrection. And no, that is not "judging" you that's utilizing some common sense regarding what your so-called "Chrsitianity" represents to those who still take the meaning of the faith seriously.

Kent D| 4.22.11 @ 6:36PM

Rita,

Do "the contradictions, the horrific cruelty" of humanity today make you doubt the existence of God, or His goodness? It seems to me that you have retained your faith in spite of the human condition. In my case, the glaring defects in human knowledge and behavior seem (to me at least) to be compatible with a God -- the God of the Bible -- who is both omni-benevolent and omnipotent. This is not to say that God is pleased or content with the current state of human affairs. But (as I mention in a separate comment elsewhere under this article), context is critical. Any person with an ounce of awareness knows that something is grossly wrong with humankind. One might well ask, "Where is God in all of this?". To me, there is a more relevant question: "Where is God going with all of this?"

Might I suggest that a serious exploration of this same question, informed by a firm belief in the goodness and trustworthiness of God, will illumine your way through the admittedly rocky and distressing portions of Scripture to which you allude? When I encounter the record of apparent contradictions and all-to-real cruelty in the Bible, I ask myself, "Where is God going with all of this?" And I try to view each issue or event in the broader context of the Bible as a whole.

Best wishes, and happy hunting...

ejp| 4.23.11 @ 12:09AM

To Rita---if you lack the guts to be open and candid in your own church about what you believe, but instead are content to lie to everyone else for the sake of the "sociability" it brings you, then you are to put it bluntly an intellectual coward of the first order.

PaulyD| 4.22.11 @ 10:20AM

There is an explanation, though I doubt you will believe it:

The reason the Bible appears contradictory is because God wrote it to confound unbelievers and to force believers (the elect) to search it out in order to understand it:

Proverbs 25:2 (KJV): [It is] the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings [is] to SEARCH OUT a matter.

Here's hoping you become a king while the door of salvation remains open. There is little time left.

o p| 4.22.11 @ 10:26AM

"appears contradictory"

The bible does not merely appear contradictory; instead, it blatantly contradicts itself over and over. The writers, apparantly, could not get their "facts" straight.

Ryan| 4.22.11 @ 10:31AM

See my previous posts...the answer here is "not necessarily." Try studying some of the scholars who answer these questions, and you'll find that if there are really any contradictions, they're trivial at best.

PaulyD| 4.22.11 @ 10:32AM

You sound confounded. :-)

PaulyD| 4.22.11 @ 10:44AM

Referring to o p's post :-))

Dr. Kawatski| 4.22.11 @ 11:11AM

Would someone take the time to answer Edward White's provocative question?

Ryan| 4.22.11 @ 11:31AM

See below.

USSAlabama| 4.22.11 @ 11:49AM

Dr. Kawatski, I meant to put the reply below here, under your comment.

I think Ryan is well-intentioned, but keeps un-intentionally muddying the water.

It takes a little research, but so much more is available to us than ever and it makes the research easier than it has ever been in history.

skip| 4.22.11 @ 4:01PM

See below (3:13 pm).

JimH| 4.22.11 @ 1:44PM

And this is after the Council of Nicaea where one of the objects was to get the story straight. Who knows what is was before. Ultimately faith is just that, a belief. There is no real point in arguing and each person must decide for themselves how to approach the Eternal.

Ryan| 4.22.11 @ 10:28AM

There are contradictions that there are Contradictions.

I think your later questions halfway answer it - you would have to have "been there" to really understand what was going on.

There's also the issue of perspective.

That being said, there really aren't any "contradictions" (real or supposed) that affect the overarching story and message and meaning.

Nothing contradicts the theme that man is a sinner, and Christ is the Saviour.

USSAlabama| 4.22.11 @ 11:43AM

Edward, this is a good question, and one that would require more space than afforded here.

You can find some answers through a little research though. Start with the wiki page on Nestle-Aland and click some of the links for other texts.

You will see that it agreement [of ancient texts]
is tabulated. This should start you well on your way.

Crystal Clear| 4.22.11 @ 2:06PM

I see there are a lot of unemployed and retired posters on this site.

Y'all seem to have too much time on your hands.

Christians? Actions speak louder than words. Get out and do some good.

MMM| 4.22.11 @ 5:06PM

Your suggestion appears to have been lifted from Orangey, 'Crystal Clear'.

If you don't like the 'posters on this site', you do not have to read the comments. Other than Ryan, who seems to have parked for the day, you are announcing to no one. Perhaps he IS retired, or worse yet - jobless.

Not sure to whom Orangey is referring, but I am glad for shared knowledge. I don't know what it could be about on-topic discussion that could intimidate you so.

Very happy to have heard of a book I will want to read, and a couple of web-sites to check out. Knowledge is power, I plan to increase mine a little this day.

skip| 4.22.11 @ 3:13PM

God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of our resurrected Lord, of the Holy Ghost, was powerless to provide His Word and His will for us through the Bible, because the several hundred individuals involved in the process of putting the Bible together were beyond His power and omnipotence to serve His purposes.

Does this really sound credible, O sage and Ninth Supreme Court chief Justice?

skip| 4.22.11 @ 4:43PM

Edward White,

Re: "nothing is asserted...not called into question or undermined elsewhere"

How much infallibility can be provided before we lose our free will? If it is explained to the degree it is irrefutable to everyone will anyone truly be free?

As far as infallible and irrefutable, are there any assertions made in the Ten Commandments that can be called into question?

There are those who profess to be Christian that support homosexual unions, when the commandment is 'Honor thy father and mother', not honor thy father and mother, father and father, or mother and mother, as the case may be.

There are those who profess to be Christian that support the 'right' to abortion, when the commandment is 'thou shall not kill', not thou shall not kill, unless you it is inconvenient to you not to.

There are those who profess to be Christian that support the redistribution of wealth, when the commandment is 'thou shall not covet thy neighbor', not thou shall not covet thy neighbor, unless thy neighbor makes too much. Not to mention the applicability of 'thou shall not steal' and 'thou shall not bear false witness'.

If the point blank assertions of the Ten Commandments can be called into question or undermined, what chance is there really for the entire Bible itself?

I believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God. Any seeming contradictions are in essence non sequiturs. Did Christ call Himself into question, did Christ undermine Himself, because he spoke in general parables and not in specific definitions?

Crystal Clear| 4.22.11 @ 8:41PM

The ten commandments can be called into question, Skip.

Which set of ten commandments do you refer?

The first and most famous set comes in Exodus 20 but ends with Moses himself smashing the supposedly most sacred artifacts ever known to man: the original, God-dictated panels of Holy Writ. The second edition occurs in Exodus 34, where new but completely different tablets are presented after some heavenly re-write session and are for the first time called “the ten commandments.” In the fifth chapter of Deuteronomy, Moses once more calls his audience together and recites the original Sinai speech with one highly significant alteration (the Sabbath commandment’s justifications in each differ greatly). But plainly discontented with the effect of this, he musters the flock again 22 chapters further on, as the river Jordan is coming into view, and gives an additional set of orders—chiefly terse curses—which are also to be inscribed in stone. As with the gold plates on which Joseph Smith found the Book of Mormon in upstate New York, no trace of any of these original yet conflicting tablets survives.

Comments (obfuscation), anyone?

skip| 4.22.11 @ 11:20PM

Do you obfuscate out of ignorance or deception?

Do you obfuscate because you are unemployed or retired?

Do you obfuscate because you have too much time on your hands?

Do you obfuscate to avoid doing good?

Do you obfuscate to hide your actions or words or both?

Or is it just because you are not a Christian.

Crystal Clear| 4.23.11 @ 10:32AM

Skip,

Is this as good as you can do to mock my post?

As you can see by reading my comments, even the Biblical accounts of the Ten Commandments are muddled.

Please explain, Skip, in a calm, reasoned voice.

skip| 4.23.11 @ 11:35AM

A calm, reasoned voice? You mean, one like this?

Crystal Clear | 4.22.11 @ 2:06PM

"I see there are a lot of unemployed and retired posters on this site.

Y'all seem to have too much time on your hands.

Christians? Actions speak louder than words. Get out and do some good."

Alison V| 4.23.11 @ 5:26PM

It sounds to me like Crystal Clear makes a good point about actions speaking louder than words.

As a committed Christian, I am willing to listen with an open mind to fellow Christians who question Biblical perplexities. Any "thinking" Christians have the same questions. I am a bit annoyed when others attack those who raise interesting, articulate, though provocative questions.

Instead of Skip dismissing Crystal Clear, he should ponder the implications of what she wrote, and there are many to consider.

skip| 4.25.11 @ 2:16PM

Crystal Clear | 4.22.11 @ 8:41PM

"Which set of ten commandments do you refer?"

This is the type of interesting, articulate, though(t) provoking, Biblical perplexity raising question 'thinking' Christians should listen to with an open mind and ponder the implications of?

Which Ten Commandments?

As a committed Christian with an open mind did it escape your notice no one, not one soul, is confused about 'which' Ten Commandments are 'which', and that Crystal Clear failed to ponder the implications of, and dismissed, every point I made about the Ten Commandments, of 'which' no open minded committed thinking Christian pondering interesting, articulate, thought provoking Biblical perplexities is, or has ever, been in confusion of?

Kent D| 4.22.11 @ 9:53PM

Edward,

A short answer to your question:

In order to make sense of the apparent contradictions in the Bible you must first make a decision about God. If there is no God (atheism), or if God exists but does not concern Himself with the affairs of His created universe (deism), then the Bible of necessity would be a product of merely human origin. (For simplicity's sake, I omit possibilities such as alien intelligences influencing human action.) Inevitably, as universal human experience testifies, human artifacts will be flawed -- perhaps painfully, obviously, and fatally flawed. This is especially true of a work as complex as the Bible, which purports (as you rightly point out) to record a history spanning millennia, and claims to be authored by dozens of different writers rooted in different times and profoundly different cultures.

If, on the other hand, a God -- something like the God that the Bible describes -- actually exists, then we must frame the question of Bible difficulties a little differently. Rather than asking, "How can the Bible be God's infallible book when virtually nothing is asserted someplace that is not called into question or undermined elsewhere?", we ask ourselves, "Without abandoning logic, or discarding many centuries' worth of empirical observations of our physical universe, can the apparent contradictions and problems we encounter as we read the Bible be explained in the context of a God such as the Bible describes?" The answer to this question is much closer to an unqualified "yes" than most non-Christians think.

Regards,
Kent

Orangey| 4.22.11 @ 1:16PM

Instead of you religious fanatics sitting in front of your computers all day arguing the bible, why don't you get out and visit someone in a nursing home or volunteer to help some elderly person with some household task.

Instead of flaunting your oh-so-precious biblical knowledge, get up off your butts and do the work of Christ by expressing his love and compassion.

I find most of you on this blog rather distasteful in your know-it-all attitudes.

M&M | 4.22.11 @ 1:18PM

Hallelujah!

You said it, Orangey!

cuban pete| 4.22.11 @ 3:15PM

Discussing the Bible or as you accuse" flaunting your oh-so-precious biblical knowledge" and doing good works is not mutually exclusive.
I have come across many Bible experts of all religions who also "vote with their a-- " and go out and do God's work.
Happy Easter. The greatest day of the year.

skip| 4.22.11 @ 3:17PM

Odd that you are sitting in front of your computer today making this argument, that you are not actually out visiting or volunteering, but are instead flaunting your oh-so-precious indignation at those who have elected today to do the work of Christ by using their computers.

What a distasteful know-it-all attitude.

Sheila| 4.22.11 @ 6:07PM

Yes, agreed PaulyD, we true believers do believe the Bible is God's word. Contra Mr. Scruton, I would say I believe it is God-inspired and inerrant but not literal, if that's not too fine a distinction.

Mark| 4.23.11 @ 1:10PM

The Bible says that Jesus is the Word of God and so I ask you. Why is it that when we hear "Word of God", we think of a book before we think of Jesus? That is a serious error, my friend, a very serious error. Scripture should lead us to the worship of Jesus Christ, the true Word of God!

Margie| 4.23.11 @ 4:55PM

This is the truth, and I for one didn't realize it until recent years, after being a Christian for decades.

Now, instead of referring to the Bible as the Word of God, I correctly refer to it as containing the words of God.

"He is clad in a robe dipped in blood, and the Name by which he is called is The Word of God. And the armies of Heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, followed Him on white horses. From His Mouth issues a sharp sword with which to smite the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; He will tread the wine press of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.
On His robe and on His thigh He has a Name inscribed, King of kings and Lord of lords." Rev. 19:13-16.

Michael Tomlinson| 4.22.11 @ 7:47AM

Just another example of why Western Europe is described as post-Christian. Prayerfully, Britain and Europe's decline into a new spriritual dark age will be reversed and the faith that ushered in human dignity and salvation will rebound in the lands that were once the heart of Christendom.

Ryan| 4.22.11 @ 8:04AM

" The Bible is a text to be discussed and interrogated, whose message does not remain entirely the same from generation to generation, but which responds to the changing circumstances of those who consult it. "

No, no NO, a thousand times NO.

The Gospel - the core of the Bible - is ALWAYS relevant in its original message.

Man is a great sinner in need of a great Saviour.

That message, has not, will not, cannot change. It is ALWAYS relevant, because we ALL are sinners.

Michael Tomlinson| 4.22.11 @ 9:10AM

Amen, amen, amen Ryan! The Bible meets people where they are, but the Gospel and grace of Christ never change they are timeless.

Margie| 4.22.11 @ 7:57PM

Right you are, Ryan.
When I read that it reminded me of what the Left says about the Constitution being a "living" document!
As the Bible says:

"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever." Heb. 13:8.

Ken | 4.22.11 @ 8:43AM

For those interested, WalMart and perhaps others have a reproduction of the original King James 1611 Bible for sale at $4.95 each. The Publisher is Zondervan and it's PRINTED IN AMERICA. A miracle indeed.

David| 4.22.11 @ 8:49AM

The Koran, the word of God indeed. God spoke to the angel Gabriel, who took the message to Mohammad who then had a scribe write it down as he was illiterate. The Koran is 4th hand information. Most of us would characterize that as chattering hear say. The Koran has no credibility what so ever. At least Moses got the 10 Commandments written in stone by the hand of God, twice mind you.

USSAlabama| 4.22.11 @ 9:00AM

Sad that the KJV has slipped behind the screen?

In NO way! Translations come down to two things - accuracy and bias.

The KJV is not an accurate translation and is shot through with bias.

The KJ bible is a translation made by commitee with a common background, and shared commitments to certain basic Christian truths quite apart from the Bible. They certainly had biases, and since those biases were held in common by the group, they went unrecognized and unaddressed in the work of translation.

This built-in theological bias in the work of Bible translation continued to present day. Now however, it is possible to have more accurate and unbiased translations, and out of all of the many modern translations available today we have two that are accurately translated and unbiased.

Neither are the beautiful piece of English literature that the KJ was, but as stated, it is accuracy and lack of bias that count, and the two that meet that requirement are the New American Bible (NAB) and the New World Translation (NW).

An excellent but scholarly book on the subject comparing the most popular available today is
_Truth in Translation_ by Jason BeDuhn.

If you can find a copy it is well worth the effort to obtain, easy reading, and a book you will find yourself referring to often.

The idea behind the King James is what sets it apart, that anyone might posses their own copy of scripture - but make sure to the best of your ability that the one in YOUR possession is of the most accurate and un-biased type.

Ryan| 4.22.11 @ 9:35AM

Without specifics, I question your conclusions.

Also, you should be above-board - the NAB and NWT are predominantly used by Catholics. There is an air of dishonesty about you without this disclosure.

Ryan| 4.22.11 @ 9:37AM

This isn't a stab against Catholicism, btw. I should have worded that better. It's admonishing that you should have been open about it.

USSAlabama| 4.22.11 @ 9:52AM

I don't know much about Catholicism, Ryan. Dr. BeDuhn suggests that perhaps their translators could afford to make a very accurate translation due to the fact that Catholics rely less on the Bible and more on other writings.

USSAlabama| 4.22.11 @ 10:16AM

There is no air of dishonesty in anything I ever write or say.

It is very hard to put an entire discourse in a comment section on a forum.

Ask something specific that I can address - I'll try my best, but don't accuse me of dishonest disclosure.

Ryan| 4.22.11 @ 10:24AM

Looking further, it's evident that you are a Jehovah's Witness.

That's the type of declaration that needs to be made up front.

Otherwise, it's difficult to know where you are coming from as a starting point.

If it was intentionally left out, it's dishonesty. If it wasn't, then it was an oversight.

USSAlabama| 4.22.11 @ 10:25AM

Dr. BeDuhn writes regarding NAB:

"The NAB's text-base is derived from both the Nestle-Aland and UBS Greek texts (which in the most recent editions are basically identical.)

"Although a few Protestant biblical scholars participated in the translation, it is largely the work of Catholic scholars and received the sanction of the Catholic church. One might assume a distinctly Catholic bias in the finished product. But ideologically the Catholic church is under less pressure to find all of it's doctrines in the Bible than is the case with Protestant denominations, and this fact, combined with the vast resources of Catholic biblical scholarship, seems to have worked to the NAB's advantage."

USSAlabama| 4.22.11 @ 10:28AM

Ryan, your assumptions regarding my denomination are ridiculous.

I'm neither Catholic nor JW - which I know almost nothing about except that I don't want them coming to my door!

Why don't you just get a copy of this book from your library and read it instead of attempting to attack me?

I don't think you are a troll here, but I'm beginning to wonder.

Ryan| 4.22.11 @ 10:33AM

Sorry if I misconstrued. I'm a bit of a nut for theological debate at times, particularly orthodoxy (ie, Apostles' Creed-type stuff).

It still would be nice to know where you're basis is.

USSAlabama| 4.22.11 @ 10:37AM

It shows.

Darin| 4.22.11 @ 9:41AM

New World Translation? Seriously? NWT John 1:1. In the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was a god." Note the additional "a" near the end. The NWT is published by Watchtower (Jehovah's Witnesses). They believe Jesus is one among MANY gods as stated in their own words.

New American Bible has Catholic origins. The Catholic church puts edicts from the church on equal footing with commandments in the Bible. The pope's hat even contains the phrase (in Latin) the vicar of Christ (meaning "in place of Christ.").

Ryan| 4.22.11 @ 9:52AM

In particular, there's a rule for translating Greek here:
Colwell's rule:
"In sentences in which the copula is expressed, a definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb."

Most conservative theologians and translators tend to accept the rule; it also fits well with the rest of Scripture and the context of the passage.

USSAlabama| 4.22.11 @ 10:08AM

Dr. BeDuhn acknowledges that the English in NW is archaic. The following is a quote from the book:

"...the NW is often and readily pointed to as an example of a translation which must have a theological bias, unlike the supposedly objective, neutral, and scholarly Bibles more widely used today. The attention to bias is heightened by the fact the the theology of Jehovah's Witnesses does not correspond to that of mainstream denominations. This difference creates a hostile atmosphere in which representatives of that mainstream theology charge that any variation of the NW from more familiar translations must serve the ulterior motives of distorting the 'truth'. but the facts are that all of the translations considered [in this book] are the products of people with theological commitments, that all contain biased translations of one sort or another and that the NW deserves to be assessed for accuracy by the same standards applied to the others.

The NW's text-base is the Westcott and Hort edition, which is the foundation of modern critical editions, and closely related to the more recent Nestle-Aland and UBS texts. It stays true to this text-base, and does not draw in readings from the inferior traditional text, as happens with the NASB, AB and LB. The NW is a formal equivalence translation, with occasional ventures into dynamic equivalence where the meaningwas felt to be obscured by potential misunderstandings of Greek idiom."

"The members of the translation team remain anonymous, just as they do for the NKJB and the Lockman Foundation's NASB."

USSAlabama| 4.22.11 @ 10:11AM

Also, Ryan, he has more than one chapter dedicated to translation of Koine.

Such as:

Probing Implicit Meaning
Words Together and not Apart
Tampering with Tenses

and one of my favorite chapters:

And the Word was ... What?

Ryan| 4.22.11 @ 10:21AM

The problem with the "bias" argument is that several of the other translations don't screw up the facts of the Greek and Hebrew, as the NWT does.
Several instances:
John 1:1
Jesus crucified on a cross (not a stake, as JW's hold)
Failed predictions of JW founders.
Necessity of salvation by works in JW theology.
Limitation of Christian population (limiting the number of Christians, in contradiction to the Promise made to Abraham).

USSAlabama| 4.22.11 @ 10:32AM

Read the book - everything is addressed there.

I can't defend NW - I've never read one. After reading _Truth in Translation_ my choice was to go and buy a recent NAB. First time read for me on the NAB with which I was previously unfamiliar.

I do not read or speak Koine and you don't either.
I do speak and understand Hebrew. And I doubt you do.

Ryan| 4.22.11 @ 10:34AM

I tend to side with the guy who (tried to) teach me Koine Greek for 4 quarters in college - old PCA minister who sided with the NASB.

USSAlabama| 4.22.11 @ 10:38AM

Do you even know who Jason BeDuhn is?

Ryan| 4.22.11 @ 11:30AM

I do now. He's one guy who has a good overall argument, but needs to be taken as one voice in many (ie, he's one guy who gives some sort of credit for the NWT among HOW many Biblical scholars who don't?)

Bob K.| 4.22.11 @ 9:46AM

Without a doubt the same arguments you give will be used against these new translations in the not too distant future. Words change and their meanings change over time.

Professor John Lukacs said it best in his recent Historical Essay: "Democracy and Populism" which was published in 2005. At page 117 he states: "........the history of ideas (indeed, of all human thought) is inseparable from the history of words."

Bias comes in every generation of human beings in every different way.

Paul Windels| 4.22.11 @ 9:47AM

The Pilgrims actually brought the Geneva Bible with them. They were Calvinists and Dissenters -- they left England to get away from King James and his church, including his Bible. Geneva was also the first widely circulated Bible, selling over 600,000 copies in a century, as it was intended to be woned by individuals and families as well as by churches (that's why it was printed in octavo). Tyndale's never got a chance, because it had to be smuggled in to England and was subject to being burned, and most of the editions between Tyndale and KJ were intended for use by churches.

That said, the Bible I enjoy most is KJV, and it is a remarkable achievement for a committee to have produce such extraordinary prose. The committee itself comprised the foremost scholars of Greek and Hebrew available (including several who were quite young). Except on topics where there was a notorious controversy (such as the translation of ecclesia) they were open to the work of all the prior translators to date, including Geneva and the Catholic Douay. They did not, however, include a commentary, which in the case of Geneva expresses its most strident views.

What I find unfortunate about the more modern translations is that, in the name of accuracy, they impose the language of pedants over the language of poets. What, for example, could be innacurate about those extraordinary words "And the posts of the door moved at the voice of him that cried and the house was filled with smoke, Then said I 'Woe is me for I am undone, for I am a man of unclean lips and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips, for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of Hosts'"? Or "And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the fields, keeping watch over their flocks by night"? I would answer that such brilliance offends the dullness of today's pedants, who know they are incapable of producing anything close to it.

The wanton destruction of the KJV, Cranmer's liturgy, and the Hymnal drove many devout Christians out of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the US. No wonder it landed in the hands of the likes of Paul Moore and Jack Spong.

Sheila| 4.22.11 @ 6:11PM

I'm another refugee from the Episcopal Church. We've been visiting various evangelical churches, trying to find a home. I miss the beautiful liturgy and tradition overlaying the solid and timeless truth of the Bible, but I will take the Gospels over liturgy anytime - and the modern Episcopal church is an abomination.

PaulyD| 4.22.11 @ 10:38PM

Dear Sheila.

Don't bother trying to find a church. The institutional churches have been done for some time. It is an end, if not THE end time sign.

There are only a few weeks left to go. Check it out here:

http://www.familyradio.com/gra.....frame.html

Judgment! It's Coming May 21| 4.23.11 @ 10:41AM

Take a look at the clock, we are rapidly approaching the day of judgment on May 21, 2011.

The question people should be crying out to God and asking God today is, what must I do to become saved from the Day of Judgment?

Ula| 4.23.11 @ 10:43AM

Read your Revelation and you will see that May 21 is the date that we wil see Jesus in all his glory!

Margie| 4.23.11 @ 4:59PM

Question for you Harold Camping followers:

If the God tells us that the Anti-Christ has to be revealed before Christ's return and that hasn't happened yet.. and since Jesus Himself tells us that NO ONE knows the Day nor the hour, not even Jesus Himself knows, but the Father only~

then how on earth do you explain such a blatant disobeying of the WORD of God??

Family Radio listener| 4.23.11 @ 8:29PM

The Anti-Christ has been revealed. The Anti-Christ is Satan and he now rules in the churches. Go to the Family Radio website for the full biblical analysis. You will also find an explanation for what is meant by "no one knows the day or the hour." Here is the link:

http://www.familyradio.com/gra.....frame.html

Margie| 4.23.11 @ 11:10PM

Really? So the Anti-Christ has been revealed, but only to the Camping crowd?
Well how about the rest of us?
Now please explain, if you can, how that jibes with the fact that Jesus says the Anti-Christ is a man. Yep, a man.

"Let no one deceive you in any way; for that Day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God." 2Th 2:5

You DO believe what the Bible actually says, don't you? Because I surely do.

Family Radio listener| 4.24.11 @ 8:27AM

Satan IS the man of sin, the son of perdition.

But start with some other helpful scriptural references:

Matthew 24:15
2 Corinthians 11: 14-15

Then read the literature at Family Radio website which explains the analysis.

Margie| 4.24.11 @ 3:54PM

So I should ignore what the Bible (God's own words) say, and believe you?

Am I to reject His own words and believe that God has revealed the Anti-Christ only to the Harold Camping group?

Am I to believe that He has left out all the rest of us Christians?

I stick to His own words. They never lead me astray.
Thank you, but I reject your false prophet.
Jesus Christ is Lord. Not Harold Camping or anyone else setting themselves up as God. And that's what he's doing by claiming (against God) that he knows the day and the hour of His return!

What a shame! And this isn't the first time he's done this. And even though he's done this before, all of you still stick with him above the Word of God, Christ Jesus?

I'm sorry for you, but you need to repent and believe the gospel of Jesus Christ. Harold Camping is preaching a different gospel. He's in BIG BIG trouble, and you ought to be preaching THAT from the mountain tops or you're going to be in the same boat.

"But of that Day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of Heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only." Mt. 24:36.

The fact that Camping is claiming that he knows the day means that he sets himself above Jesus and the angels of Heaven.

That is sad.. and disgusting.

alice moore| 4.24.11 @ 10:40PM

The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod is a good home for conservative Christians.

Paul Streitz | 4.22.11 @ 10:20AM

The King James Version of the Bible was created by Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford from 1604-1607 while he was exiled to the Isle of Mersea on the English coast, near Colchester. Oxford is better known by his pen name, "William Shakespeare."

Avoiding the lengthy argument of why Oxford is Shakespeare, I will point out a few flaws in the argument that the KJV was created by a bunch of scholars. First, there is no record of the scholars ever meeting. Second, there is no indication that any of the scholars had any literary capabilities. Third, the KJV is written in one hand, that of Shakespeare, and there have been many scholars who pointed out the similarities in style.

Further, there is an Oxford Bible, the Geneva Bible, in the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington, which has the annotation of Oxford written in the margins. Those annotations are the Bible passages most frequently found in the works of Shakespeare.

Full details of this can be found in my book: Oxford: Son of Queen Elizabeth I, which is available on Amazon.com and Smashwords.com. The book further details why Oxford was the son of Queen Elizabeth and he was born July 21, 1548.

Paul Streitz
Author: Oxford: Son of Queen Elizabeth I

Groad| 4.22.11 @ 11:27AM

Oxford died in 1604, thus cannot be affiliated with the King James bible. His heavily annotated Geneva Bible with his Crest on it is indeed at the FOlger Library. Roger Strittmatter researched hundreds of corresponding notes and marking related directly to Shakespearean writing. DeVere was in deed the writer under the pen name Williame Shakespeare.

He was not however the child of Elizabeth.
Your sholarship may be less than accurate according to other Oxfordian scholars. Your suppositions are too easily refuted.

Bob K.| 4.22.11 @ 5:41PM

The little couplet, quoted below, by Shakespeare has been argued by some scholars to prove Shakespeare did indeed write Shakespeare's works. I last saw it argued many years ago in an article in "The Atlantic" magazine which featured arguments on both sides of this issue. Indeed, it was in the last argument in his favor and was in the final paragraph of the aforesaid article. The argument is quite simple in it's ingenuity, and quite persuasive when taken into context with his other writings.

Here it is:
"Golden lads and girls all must
Like Chimney Sweepers come to dust!"

In Shakespeare's home dialect "Golden Lads" were dandelions, "Chimney Sweeper's" were the gray seeds on them as they aged and the "dust" was the seeds that the wind blew away.

It is argued that none of the other pretender's alleged to have been Shakespeare would have had the cultural background or even the knowledge to use these facts in this remarkable little poem.

I recall an English Professor of mine stating at the beginning of a class on Shakespeare saying: "Let me now state to clarify all further discussion on this issue: "Shakespeare did not write Shakespeare's works! They were written buy a person who had the exact same name."

Paul Streitz | 4.22.11 @ 7:08PM

Oxford did not die in 1604. He disappeared. There was no funeral, there were no written comments about him dying. Nothing. Not until a letter in January 1608 does anyone refer to Oxford as "deceased."

An article will be published in Shakespeare Matters, edited by Roger Stritmatter, that makes the claim that Oxford wrote the KJV. Also, I assisted Roger in creating his work on the Oxford Bible.

I invite anyone to go to www.darienfilmcompany.com and click on Elizab eth's Son, from there you can find the paper on the King James Bible. And the key chapter of Elizabeth having a child in 1548.
Paul Streitz

vince| 4.22.11 @ 7:58PM

It is widely recognized that shakespeare used the Geneva Bible, not the KJV. The KJV was published five years before shakespeare's death, and therefore was not a major influence on his works.

Richard Baker| 4.22.11 @ 3:20PM

The Koran has been hijacked by an Islamic clergy most of whose members around the world are illiterate. The Bible is not close held from it's members most of whom CAN read and interpret using various sources to decipher the translations, words, and meanings. The Bible operates upon the idea of freewill and the Koran operates upon the idea that one has NO freewill but MUST obey. After all the word Islam means submission, correct?

Margie| 4.22.11 @ 7:49PM

"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him." Jn. 3:36.

The only "choice" one has with God, is to say yes or no.

But if you think one really believes there is this choice, they are sorely mistaken.

"We know that in everything God works for good with those who love Him, who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, in order that He might be the first-born among many brethren. And those whom He predestined He also called; and those whom He called He also justified; and those whom He justified He also glorified." Rom. 8:28-30.

The difference between the false god of the koran and the true God of the Bible is that one exists and one does not.

The difference between those who preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and those who "preach" the koran's lies is that one group of people are lying, and one is telling the truth.

The people who "preach" the lies of the false god will kill you if you do not submit.
But the Christians who preach the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ will tell you that God Himself will throw you into Hell if you "choose" to reject His Son.
We kill no one, but want others to be saved from that fiery prospect, if possible.
Some hypocrites accuse Christians who preach the gospel of being the same as these murderers because they feel the need to try and justify themselves because they don't want to hear God's Truth.

And that is sad.

Kent D| 4.22.11 @ 6:08PM

"Think of the...story of Rahab, about whom the best can be said is that she was a whore: did God have a hand in that?"

Well, it depends on what you mean by that. While God may not have had a direct hand in Rahab's harlotry, He clearly had a hand in her life. Three better things are in fact said about about Rahab than that she was a whore:

(1) She was a woman of faith: "By faith Rahab the harlot perished not with them that were disobedient, having received the spies with peace." (Hebrews 11:31)

(2) She was justified by her works: "...was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works, in that she received the messengers, and sent them out another way?" (James 2:25)

(3) She was in the lineage of Messiah -- a direct ancestor of Jesus Christ. (Matthew 1:5)

Careful readers of the Bible will attend to context, which clears up many apparent problems. I suggest that viewing the book of Joshua in its larger context will in fact make its record of violence and "bloodthirstiness" at least more explicable, if not totally understandable.

Paul| 4.23.11 @ 10:52AM

Yeah, Kent. You got it, man. The story of Rahab and the book of Joshua make perfect sense "in context" with the rest of the contradictory, scientifically-erroneous, and incoherent Bible.

But the poetry is beautiful. I have a recording of Richard Burton reading the psalms from the King James Version. Magnificent!

Sheila| 4.22.11 @ 6:16PM

I was raised as a standard American Jew, by a family who typically believed in being Jewish (and liberal, but that's a whole other ball of wax) but didn't believe in God. All through my college years as an English major, I remember numerous different professors troubled and bewildered by their students' ignorance of the KJ Bible. They'd ask where a particular phrase or quote or image in English literature came from, and we'd all be clueless.

When I became a Christian and actually sat down and read the Bible (yes, correct order; I had my epiphany before I had actually read most of Scripture), I was amazed I was able to get a degree in English Lit from a top-name school while being utterly ignorant of the book which inspired it all.

vince| 4.22.11 @ 7:47PM

I appreciate your piece honoring the role of the KJV in shaping our faith and language. One correction however, the pilgrim fathers read the Geneva Bible, not the KJV.

Michael| 4.22.11 @ 8:04PM

After reading the above comments I can more fully understand the dilemma faced by the young Joseph Smith Jr. in the 1820's as he struggled over which of the several churches he should join. You are still at such odds against each other, but in the end none of your churches contain the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Bible is a testament to us that Jesus was and is the only begotten son of God in the flesh, that he came into this world to die for our sins, and to make possible our return to live with our Heavenly Father again. He is the Savior and Redeemer of the world.
I'm proud and humble to be a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and have the Book of Mormon as another testament of Jesus Christ. Live the golden rule and quit the bickering, please.

Margie| 4.22.11 @ 8:24PM

"It is impossible that the Bible should now have, for the educated Christian, the kind of authority that the Koran has for the Muslim. The Bible is a text to be discussed and interrogated, whose message does not remain entirely the same from generation to generation, but which responds to the changing circumstances of those who consult it."

Mr. Scruton,

Oh ye of little faith!

And just who are these "educated" Christians who say that it's impossible that the Bible has the same authority it's always had?

Hmm, maybe those who are "predisposed" to not wanting it to have said Authority.

And the message does not remain entirely the same?
Since you have written an article concerning the subject, please enlighten me as to exactly how and where the message of the Bible has changed?

"At best the Bible consists of words inspired by God,"

You got that right, pardner. And that's all I need, thank you very much.
And on that note, I bid you adieu!

Paul Streitz | 4.22.11 @ 8:29PM

Somehow, I cannot directly reply to a few of the comments on authorship, so I am posting here.

The man from Stratford-upon-Avon's name was spelled "Shakspere," or "Shaxspere" or variants of that in the church record. It was not until after the publication of Venus and Adonis where "Shakespeare" was the pen name, does the spelling "Shakespeare" start appearing in Stratford.

Yes, the KJV used as its source the Geneva Bible, not other Bibles around, and the particular one was that owned by Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford that sits in the Shakespeare Folger Library. It is marked with the passages frequently found in Shakespeare.

Oxford/Shakespeare did not "write" the KJV as if he translated it. Rather, he recreated it with stronger poetic language and his own contributions.

Again, I encourage those interested in who wrote the KJV to go to my website, www.darienfilmcompany.com, click on Elizabeth's Son and you will be led to a paper on teh subject.

Paul Streitz
Oxford: Son of Queen Elizabeth I

Paul Windels| 4.23.11 @ 9:21AM

Paul S -- I'm not well briefed on the Oxford-Shakespeare debate, but as a natural born skeptic (hence a conservative) I'd be very interested in reading anything unquestionably written by Oxford that the Oxford supporters would argue is as good as the works of Shakespeare (not prejudging the authorship issue!). I have heard the negative argument (e.g. how could a common stage actor produce such works as Shakespeare without having a superior education) and find it unpersuasive -- by the same logic Henry Ward Beecher wrote the Gettysburg Address (actually the last sentence was cribbed from John Wycliffe via Theodore Parker). I also have a strong feeling that the author of Shakespeare's plays had a natural talent for the stage and knew the stage well, which is why so many of his plays play well. Take some of the comic sililoquys, such as the drunken porter in Macbeth or the boy in Henry V; these are superb standup comedy. Hence I'm swayed by the idea of the authorship being by an actor.

Anyhow, I'd truly appreciate it if you can show me something unquestionably by Oxford that you think measures up. Best wishes. Paul W.

cuban pete| 4.23.11 @ 11:54AM

Paul:
Give "Contested Will, Who wrote Shakespeare?"by James Shapiro a whirl. Published by Simon & Schuster.
All the best,
cuban pete

Stuart| 4.22.11 @ 9:23PM

Mr. Scruton,

If you are going to undercut the authority of Scripture, please do the courtesy of informing your readers that you do not speak for the Church at large. Liberal theology is not the rule, and your sweeping generalization that Christians no longer trust the authority of the Bible is, frankly, ignorant. To most of us, an essential part of being a Christian is faith in the authority and power of Scripture. The Bible is a book for all ages and cultures, and its message never changes. It is God's special revelation to man, without which we would be unable to understand his ultimate purpose in redemptive history. Its mode of formation and delivery may have been influenced by the culture in which God chose to work, but its message is eternal. "All scripture is given by inspiration from God" and "the scripture cannot be broken." I do, however, appreciate your defense of the KJV translation and its influence on our history. I enjoyed the article right up to the end.

Mark Yaegel| 4.23.11 @ 9:02PM

The Bible has no authority outside the Church (Mat 18:17, Acts 20:28, 1Tim 3:15) that gave it to us. That's the Rock(Mat 16:18) solid Truth(John 14:6). Jesus didn't leave the Bible in charge, He left His Gatekeeper in charge(Mark 13:34, John 10:3). Get it. He's the one with the keys(Isaiah 22:22, Mat 16:19).

Margie| 4.24.11 @ 3:57PM

"The Bible has no authority outside the Church".

The Bible IS the authority OVER the "Church".

Mark Yaegel| 4.24.11 @ 6:53PM

Where's that in the Bible Margie? Apart from the Church the Bible make's no sense.(Acts8:26-40)
The Bible bears witness to the authority of the Catholic Church(the only Church), as sited in my previous post, while the Church bears witness to the authority of scripture(Mat18:17, 1Tim3:15, 2Tim3:16, 1Pet2:6, 2Pet1:20, 3:14-17) The Church is older then the Bible. The Bible came out of te Church not vice versa. Otherwise you're just adding to scripture and you don't want to go there(Prov.30:6).

Margie| 4.24.11 @ 8:28PM

"Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." Jn. 8:58.

Since Jesus Christ IS the Word of God Himself, and men moved by the Spirit of God wrote the Bible, they are the Authorities over ALL.

Nice try though.

"And Jesus came and said to them, "All Authority in Heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age." Mt. 28:18-20.

Jesus first, and Jesus always.

Margie| 4.24.11 @ 8:47PM

Also:
"Apart from the Church the Bible make's no sense".

Nope. Apart from the Holy Spirit the Bible makes no sense.

As it is written:

"The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
"The spiritual man judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one.
"For who has known the Mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ." 1 Cor. 2:14-16.

"The Bible bears witness to the authority of the Catholic Church(the only Church),"

That's not true.
The Bible bears witness to the Authority of God. And so do those filled with the Holy Spirit.

"For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God." Rom. 8:14.

"..for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith." Gal. 3:26.

"And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!" Gal. 4:6.

"The Church is older then the Bible".

I don't know who is teaching you, poor soul, but if I were you, I'd run like a rabbit to get away from them!

Mark Yaegel| 4.24.11 @ 11:15PM

You can't separate Christ from His Church because Christ and His Church are one(Eph.5:22-32 Rev.21:21). And what God has joined together let no man put asunder(Mark 10:1-12). And that Church is the pillar and foundation of truth(1Tim.3:15), the Church that Christ vested with His authority(Mark 13:34, Mat.16:15:19, Luke 10:16). You couldn't distort scripture by quoting it out of context(Mat.26:60-61) except for the historical fact that the Catholic Church has been testifying to the Light of the world(John 8:12) for two-thousand years. As far as the Church being older then the Bible. What I have written I have written(John 19:22).

Margie| 4.24.11 @ 11:54PM

The church of Jesus Christ are those who do His will. It isn't a building, and it isn't any one Religion.

"For where two or three are gathered in My Name, there am I in the midst of them." Mt. 18:20.

"What God has joined together" is talking about Marriage.

And the church of the living God spoken of in 1 Tim. 3:15 is the body of Christ, which is made up of believers throughout the world. It isn't any one Religion, but Christians~ individuals make up His church.

I believe this covers it all quite perfectly, as the God of the Bible is my Rock, and His Spirit that dwells in me also testifies to His Truth. I accept none other. Your accusations are faulty. The Catholic church has no special claim to God, nor to anyone's soul. Only Christ has that power, my dear:

"So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the Cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit." Eph. 2:19-22.

"Every Word of God proves true; He is a Shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words, lest he rebuke you, and you be found a liar." Prov. 30:5 & 6.

Margie| 4.25.11 @ 1:14PM

Correction: I should have used the word Denomination, rather than the word "Religion", above.
~~~
The New Testament definition (God's) of religion, (small 'r') is this:

"Pure and undefiled religion before God
and the Father is this: to visit orphans and
widows in their afflictions, and to keep
oneself without blemish from the world."
James 1:27.

Denominations are simply divisions. Miriam Webster defines the word as such:

": a religious organization whose congregations are united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices".

First known use in the 15th century.

Quite revealing.

Notice it says "united in their adherence to IT'S beliefs".

How are Denominations the will of God if they all are separating themselves from each other, and thus the Word of God who says:

"I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment."
1 Cor. 1:10.

The question is: Are they adherents to the the Scriptures? Are they adherents to the Word of God?

Why do Christians seek to separate under many names other than Christian?

skip| 4.25.11 @ 2:24PM

Surprising, in all likelihood, no regular readers here at AmSpec, let me just say:

Well done.

Your posts on this thread are even more on point and concise than usual.

Happy Easter.

Margie| 4.25.11 @ 3:34PM

Me?

skip| 4.25.11 @ 6:30PM

Sorry, I should be more clear.

And, of course, you.

Margie| 4.25.11 @ 7:52PM

Thank you, skip.

Mark Yaegel| 4.26.11 @ 4:51AM

The Church is a Kingdom(Mat.26:15-19) and Christ our King left men in charge of it(Mark 13:34), not the Bible. The Catholic Church is even structured as this Kingdom. Christ is our King(Mat.2:2, John 18:37, 19:19), Mary is our Queen(1Kings 2:12-20, Jer.29:2, John 2:12, 19:27), the Pope, that is, Peter is the steward over the house(Isaiah 22:15-24, Mark 13:34, Mat.16:18-19, 24:45, John 21:17). And of course the bishop and priests who round out the royal court. Not to mention the angels and saints in Heaven(Heb.12-22-24). The Church is one Religion(Eph4:5). The two or three gathered in His Name(Mat.18:20) are to be members of His Church(Mat.18:20). You're taking that out of context(Mat.26:60-61). Of course "What God has joined together" is talking about marriage. Christ's relationship to the Church is analogous to marriage(Eph.5:22-32, Rev.21:21). "The Church of Jesus Christ are those who do His will"? Not necessarily(John6:70). I agree with you about denominationalism but the Catholic Church is not a denomination. It's, well, it's the One True Church. I don't seem to be getting anywhere with you Margie. Never-the-less may God bless your sweet heart, Even so,amen(Rev.1:7).

Margie| 4.26.11 @ 3:00PM

"The Catholic Church is even structured as this Kingdom. Christ".

And therein lies the problem. It thinks it is, but isn't. The Author of Life, the Word of God precisely tells us NOT to have a hierarchy of men.

We're each saved by Grace, not by a church or Religion with its rituals and solemn assemblies. Only Jesus saves. He gives the Holy spirit to those who ask, and gives each one the authority to become His children. He has done away with Religion as the way to Heaven, and now He saves by Grace, through faith.

"Therefore, brothers, having confidence
for the entering of the Holy of Holies
by the blood of Jesus,
which He consecrated for us, a new
and living Way through the veil; that is,
His flesh;
and having a Great Priest over the
house of God,
let us draw near with a true heart in full
assurance of faith, our hearts having been
sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our
body having been washed in pure water;
let us hold fast the confession of the
hope unyielding, for the One having promised
is faithful.
And let us consider one another, unto
incitement of love and of good works,
not forsaking the assembling together
of ourselves, as is the custom of some, but
exhorting, and by so much more as you
see the Day drawing near". Heb. 10:19-25.

God bless you, as well.

Dee See| 4.23.11 @ 10:29PM

Revealing to remember one of the reasons
King James wanted a new Bible, esp. to replace
the Puritan Geneva Bible ---was the king's outrage
over that version's truthful commentary on
the ancient Jews refusing to comply with Pharoah's order to slaughter their newborns.

Seems James could not stand the fact that God
could stand against a kingly order.

Important to remember as EUGENICS and Social Darwinism
is the acknowledged, ON RECORD, core ideology
of our 'shadow government'.

Margie| 4.25.11 @ 12:47PM

Read the book, "Unholy Hands on the Bible" for a precise history of same.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/produ.....F7H92293EV

Tina B| 4.25.11 @ 5:13PM

Yes this has been one of several GREAT threads at TAS this Resurrection Season, and I have loved it!

I love the arguments Margie makes, she knows her Scripture so well she can respond to anything with a number of verses and IMHO they always seem to be in the appropriate contexts. Thanks M, for knowing the Word so well.

And you are using it in such a winsome way these days. :^)

Dee See| 4.26.11 @ 1:20AM

---AS the devastating reality of capstone
Social Darwinist/EUGENICS world subversion
emerges into damningly UNDENIABLE light

PLEASED to inform one and all

The authentic Geneva Bible, complete
with parallel commentary, IS available
for download FREE online.

GET IT!

Creative Recreation | 8.10.11 @ 9:58PM

is good

Latest Headlines

Green Flags, Yellow Flags, and Black Flags

John Tabin|25 comments

Barack’s Brave New World Blarney

George Neumayr|12 comments

There’s Something About Cambridge

Daniel J. Flynn|18 comments

Obama’s Unaffordable Act

Peter Ferrara|26 comments

Celebrating Our Lady of Paris

Joseph A. Harriss|4 comments

Charter Schooling? Why Not Charter Housing?

Wayne Woodman|10 comments

Cash for Organs?

Eric Boehm|7 comments

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|102 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Elbert Guillory: “Why I Am a Republican”

Patrick Ryan | 10:13AM

The One Party State

F.H. Buckley | 9:47AM

Cummings Accused of Subverting IRS Investigation

Jeffrey Lord | 6:20AM

Let Pitchers Throw Complete Games

Aaron Goldstein | 12:10AM

Thoughts on New U.S.-Taliban Peace Talks

Aaron Goldstein | 6.18.13

Thank You, Bobby Jindal

Matt Purple | 6.18.13

Buzzfeed Faces $3.6 Million Lawsuit for Copyright Infringement

Kaylin Bugos | 6.18.13

Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder

Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

The American Spectator

The Pursuit of Knowledge

Translating the Word

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (133) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

PaulyD| 4.22.11 @ 7:41AM

Phil| 4.22.11 @ 9:12AM

Ryan| 4.22.11 @ 9:45AM

PaulyD| 4.22.11 @ 10:46AM

Ryan| 4.22.11 @ 11:33AM

Edward White| 4.22.11 @ 10:00AM

Rita S.| 4.22.11 @ 10:14AM

Tom from Tennesee| 4.22.11 @ 10:17AM

Rita S.| 4.22.11 @ 10:22AM

Ryan| 4.22.11 @ 10:30AM

Tom from Tennesee| 4.22.11 @ 10:48AM

Rita S.| 4.22.11 @ 11:03AM

o p| 4.22.11 @ 11:09AM

Ryan| 4.22.11 @ 11:39AM

bill | 4.22.11 @ 12:49PM

Dr. Kawatski| 4.22.11 @ 1:03PM

Ryan| 4.22.11 @ 1:14PM

Margie| 4.22.11 @ 7:33PM

David T| 4.23.11 @ 3:48PM

vince| 4.24.11 @ 10:27PM

Ryan| 4.22.11 @ 11:18AM

Walkthetalk| 4.22.11 @ 12:39PM

Susan Milligan| 4.22.11 @ 1:12PM

Ryan| 4.22.11 @ 1:16PM

o p| 4.22.11 @ 2:01PM

Ryan| 4.22.11 @ 3:02PM

skip| 4.22.11 @ 3:23PM

ejp| 4.23.11 @ 12:07AM

Kent D| 4.22.11 @ 6:36PM

ejp| 4.23.11 @ 12:09AM

PaulyD| 4.22.11 @ 10:20AM

o p| 4.22.11 @ 10:26AM

Ryan| 4.22.11 @ 10:31AM

PaulyD| 4.22.11 @ 10:32AM

PaulyD| 4.22.11 @ 10:44AM

Dr. Kawatski| 4.22.11 @ 11:11AM

Ryan| 4.22.11 @ 11:31AM

USSAlabama| 4.22.11 @ 11:49AM

skip| 4.22.11 @ 4:01PM

JimH| 4.22.11 @ 1:44PM

Ryan| 4.22.11 @ 10:28AM

USSAlabama| 4.22.11 @ 11:43AM

Crystal Clear| 4.22.11 @ 2:06PM

MMM| 4.22.11 @ 5:06PM

skip| 4.22.11 @ 3:13PM

skip| 4.22.11 @ 4:43PM

Crystal Clear| 4.22.11 @ 8:41PM

skip| 4.22.11 @ 11:20PM

Crystal Clear| 4.23.11 @ 10:32AM

skip| 4.23.11 @ 11:35AM

Alison V| 4.23.11 @ 5:26PM

skip| 4.25.11 @ 2:16PM

Kent D| 4.22.11 @ 9:53PM

Orangey| 4.22.11 @ 1:16PM

M&M | 4.22.11 @ 1:18PM

cuban pete| 4.22.11 @ 3:15PM

skip| 4.22.11 @ 3:17PM

Sheila| 4.22.11 @ 6:07PM

Mark| 4.23.11 @ 1:10PM

Margie| 4.23.11 @ 4:55PM

Michael Tomlinson| 4.22.11 @ 7:47AM

Ryan| 4.22.11 @ 8:04AM

Michael Tomlinson| 4.22.11 @ 9:10AM

Margie| 4.22.11 @ 7:57PM

Ken | 4.22.11 @ 8:43AM

David| 4.22.11 @ 8:49AM

USSAlabama| 4.22.11 @ 9:00AM

Ryan| 4.22.11 @ 9:35AM

Ryan| 4.22.11 @ 9:37AM

USSAlabama| 4.22.11 @ 9:52AM

USSAlabama| 4.22.11 @ 10:16AM

Ryan| 4.22.11 @ 10:24AM

USSAlabama| 4.22.11 @ 10:25AM

USSAlabama| 4.22.11 @ 10:28AM

Ryan| 4.22.11 @ 10:33AM