40 - 50: Wow! You know more than a minister, priest, or rabbi!
That's flattering, but a little exaggerated. I'm pretty good with Bible stuff but I don't know more than most of the other clergy I know.
I noticed as I looked through the answers that there were some inaccuracies, and a lot of commentary. In other words they were a good starting point for a conversation but not something I'd want to take as the final word. If you have the same reaction, here's my take:
SPOILER WARNING: If you are going to take the test, do it before reading this section!
I have copied the question from the quiz, followed by the correct answer (with commentary) posted on the Freedom From Religion Foundation site, then added my comments after.
1. What is the last of the Ten Commandments?
Answer: C - "Don't boil a young goat in the milk of its mother."
Believe it or not, this prohibition in Exodus 34:26 is the official tenth commandment, from the only set of stone tablets that were called "the ten commandments." There were three sets of commandments:
1) The first time Moses came down from Mount Sinai with commandments, he merely recited a list (Exodus 20:2-17), which is the version most churches today erroneously call the "Ten Commandments," although they were not engraved on stone tablets and not called "the ten commandments."
2) The first set of stone tablets was given to Moses at a subsequent trip up the mountain (Exodus 31:18). In this farcical story, Moses petulantly destroyed those tablets when he saw the people worshipping the golden calf (Exodus 32:19).
3) So he went back for a replacement. God told Moses: "Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest." (Exodus 34:1)
Here is what was on the replacement tablets (from Exodus 34:14-26)
My Comments:
This is an ingenious way of suggesting that all Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish interpretive tradition is wrong. I suppose that's a possibility but if you read Exodus 34 carefully you'll see that there's nothing that says that the list from Exodus 34 is the "official list" nor that it--and not the list from Exodus 20--was carved on the tablets. That's just the FFRF's interpretation.
There are several different lists of the Ten Commandments; the most familiar is from Exodus 20:2-17 and another version shows up in Deuteronomy 5:6-21. there are some subtle but interesting differences between these two versions of the Ten Commandments. Critical scholars believe that the lists were written at different times by different authors according to what is known as the Documentary Hypothesis.
So what do you do when you have several lists that don't quite match? You can't look at the tablets because nobody has them. Jewish and Christian interpretative traditions have chosen the Exodus 20 list as the one most reflective of their experience of God and the Laws of Moses.
I suggest you read the passages in full and decide for yourself.
2. What is the penalty for working on the Sabbath?
Answer: A - "You will be stoned to death."
Isn't this an excessively violent punishment from a supposedly "Good Book?" What is the harm in working on the Sabbath? It seems the only harm is to the ego of the Sovereign, who demands respect with no respect to human needs.
My Comments:
This is the punishment listed. It is indeed excessively harsh and we don't know exactly why. The best explanation I've heard is the Rabbinic tradition that the death penalty was proscribed for quite a few crimes in ancient Israel, but was very rarely used. In other words, the leaders of the community had the option of imposing the death penalty, but only used it in the extremely rare cases when everything else had failed. Both the Old and New Testaments use hyperbole a lot in making moral points. They set up a terrible penalty to show the seriousness of a crime, but when the crime is broken they show mercy rather than following the letter of the law. The story of Adam and Eve is a good example of this. God sets up the death penalty for eating the forbidden fruit, but refrains from killing them when they break the rule.
The FFRF cites an example of a man put to death for working on the Sabbath. It's a grim tale, but it is also the only instance of this happening in the Bible. Is it a literal story or a kind of boogie-man story designed to impress the seriousness of the law on people?
The FFRF also suggest that the only purpose of the Sabbath is to appease God's ego, but a look at the Sabbath laws shows that this is not the case. You aren't supposed to work seven days a week, and you're not allowed to make others work that hard either; not even animals. In addition, there was also a Sabbath year, called Shmita on which the earth was given a rest from labor and allowed to lie fallow. Then, after every seven sevens of years, on the fiftieth year, came a special Sabbath called the Jubilee. All debts were forgiven and all slaves were set free. The Sabbath Laws were about social and economic justice.
3. What is God's name?
Answer: A - "Jealous"
This is a petty self-described insecurity from a supposedly all-wise leader.
"For thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God." (Exodus 34:14)
My Comments:
The quiz makers correctly state that the name Jehovah is an erroneous reading of the Hebrew name YHWH by medieval Christian writers.
However, the statement that God's proper name is "Jealous" is erroneous. It may look that way in some English translations but "jealous" is simply one of many epithets assigned to God and versions of the Bible that translate this more accurately say "the jealous one." The only name in the Bible that can described as God's personal name is Yahweh (traditionally spelled without vowels as YHWH).
I do agree that calling God jealous reflects a crude understanding of God. Other biblical images of God as the merciful one, the just one, etc. hew closer to God's true nature.
4. How should parents treat a stubborn and rebellious son?
Answer: D - He should be stoned to death.
This cruelly excessive Mosaic law was actually enforced at one time by the Massachusetts colony and has been used to justify child abuse and murder.
My Comments:
This another example of exaggeration to make a point. There is no instance in the Bible of someone carrying it out. The fact that Christians in several times and palces have used this to justify child abuse and murder is chilling, but the fault with is with the abuser, not with the scriptures they twist to their own ends. This kind of behavior is condemned by the vast majority of Christians and Jews.
5. What happens if you are not a virgin on your wedding night?
Answer: D - You will be stoned to death.
This barbaric punishment is still being followed in some parts of the Moslem world, which share some of the teachings of the Hebrew bible. There is no such penalty, needless to say, for a groom who is not a virgin. The fact that Christian women who have engaged in premarital sex are not being stoned to death today shows that even believers recognize cruelty and absurdity in their own "Good Book."
My Comments:
I agree that this is a brutal and senseless rule, and one which reflects the fact that women and girls were horribly undervalued in ancient Hebrew culture. The Bible was written in a particular time and place to a particular culture. That culture owned slaves and treated women like they were less than men. That wasn't just a Hebrew attitude though, it was more or less universal through the ancient world.
While it is ridiculous to take these words as moral guidance, it is absurd to condemn people who lived thousands of years ago because they didn't conform to twenty-first century standards.
6. What does the bible say about witches?
Answer: A - Witches should be killed.
Tragically, tens of thousands, if not millions, of innocent women in Europe and the American colonies were cruelly accused, tortured and executed because of one single bible verse.
My Comments:
The Hebrew word translated "witch" here refers to someone who speaks to the spirits of the dead so "medium" would be a better translation. It's kind of amusing to note that this would condemn phony psychics like John Edward.
While this I agree that this is an ugly passage, it is probably another of those exaggerations I've mentioned. Certainly those who wrote it could never have imagined the witchcraft persecutions. For that matter, the authors of the quiz seem to accept some myths and misperceptions about the witch persecutions at face value. In fairness, it's best to be accurate all around.
7. Which of these foods does the bible expressly permit you to eat? (The others are "abominations.")
Answer: C - "Locusts."
Since ham and lobster are verboten to bible believers, how about some barbecued grasshopper or steamed locust for dinner?
My Comments:
True, though there are several New Testament passages including one from Jesus that address this specifically.
Bon apetit.
8. When the Israelites conquered the Midianites, what part of the spoils of war was given to the priest as "the Lord's tribute"?
Answer: D - 32 virgins.
Of the 32,000 virgins that were kept alive as "booty" for God's warriors, 32 young captives were handed to the priest. The bible brutally sanctifies war crimes against girls and women that continue to this day. Who could possibly respect a dictator who behaves like this?
My Comments:
If God were a dictator who sanctioned this sort of thing, I would agree, but that's not the case. The Bible was written a long time (2-3 thousand years) ago and people in the ancient world had a number of things they took for granted. The inferiority of women, the taking of booty in war, and slavery were only some of these things.
What we see in passages like this is a primitive people projecting their cultural assumptions on God. This stands in contrast to the more enlightened words from the prophets, Apostles, and Jesus as people developed a better understanding of the nature of God.
9. What is the origin of the "mighty men" giants known as nephilim?
Answer: A - They were the offspring of God's angels and young women.
Can't God maintain better control over his libidinous troops? This is scandal in high places.
This is obviously mythical. The "sons of God" were angels: "the expression clearly refers to divine beings." (Harper's Bible Dictionary) The word nephilim "could mean 'fallen ones' and allude to stories in related cultures of rebellious giants defeated by the gods in olden times (cf. Isa. 14:12)." (Harper's)
Some suggest this is why Paul admonished Christian women to keep their heads covered in church, so as not to sexually tempt the angels: "For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels." (I Corinthians 11:10)
My Comments:
This is pretty accurate. There are some stories in Genesis that make you shake your head and wonder. I will say though, that it is inconsistent with every other depiction of angels in the Bible.
10. What happened to Korah and his family, Israelites who thought they could talk directly with God without a human intermediary?
Answer: C - The earth opened and swallowed them up.
See Numbers 16:31-35 for the whole story, in context, of God killing 15,000 of his own people for daring to question the authority of Moses. But it gets worse! Some who thought this was pretty harsh treatment were killed by a plague.
My Comments:
This is one of a number of brutal stories that believers and non-believers alike have a hard time with. Aside from repeating that ancient and primitive people have a different set of values and perception of God, there's not much to say. Of course to condemn God on the strength of these stories is to assume that these writers have a handle on the real God while the writers of books like Amos, Micah, Isaiah, Ruth, etc. (not to mention the Gospels) are clueless.
Believers have to struggle with these stories and the dark side of religion/God that they raise, but they are ultimately not the decisive stories in how we understand God.
No comments:
Post a Comment