New 'Bible' says Christ born of gorilla, not virgin

[jgredline]

OK....Here we go again......


A new, lavishly illustrated book – described by its marketer as a "postmodern" edition of the Bible – takes Darwin's theory of evolution as gospel and presents Jesus as being born, "not to a virgin, but to a gorilla."

According to Ruth Rimm, Bronx school teacher and book artist, her version of the Scriptures – titled "Lost Spiritual World" – "explores the emergence of a new global spirituality that mixes the best of each wisdom tradition with the latest findings in psychology, quantum physics, neuroscience, and linguistics."

It is a "Bible for skeptics, seekers, and people of different faiths."


The first volume in the series – which will eventually present the Torah, Bhagavad Gita, Buddhist sutras, and Sufi mysticism – covers the Gospel of Mark.

Rimm, however, includes parables not found in Mark, such as the Parable of the Dolphin, the Parable of the Snow Leopard and the Parable of the Gorilla, which are illustrated in a series of irreverent videos to be made available on YouTube as part of the book's marketing campaign.

The Parable of the Gorilla begins with a Renaissance painting of Mary and baby Jesus. The voice over by a standup comedian begins:

He was born in a manger a long time ago – not to a virgin – but to a gorilla. What's so funny? Who did you expect his ancestors to look like, Tom Cruise?

But wait. I'm not making fun of Jesus. I'm not mocking religion. In fact, from the deepest wellspring of my heart, I'm despairing something we've lost in our scientific culture.

Yes, if Jesus was alive today, he would understand that his ancestors, just like ours, were beasts.

No, he wouldn't run around claiming he was born of a virgin.

And, brilliant rabbi that he was, he would likely ask us to understand the miracle stories metaphorically – as morality tales – but certainly not as literal truth.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.a ... E_ID=54518

Hmmm, kinda of reminds me of a few folks who also think Hell is a metaphore... :wink:

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.a ... E_ID=54518

 

[Solo]

Some people's Jesus did descend from a Gorilla. When they are judged by the real Jesus they will wish they had believed in the real Jesus. :wink:

 

[Rick W]

Well, that's exactly what evolution is saying isn't it? Mary was born of ape therefore so was Christ. Depends on what priority one supports ideas. If you support evolution then the bible must conform to that idea. If the bible is contradictory to any ideas of evolution it's the bible that must be modified or interpreted in a different manner and not the ideas of evolution. Evolution is sacred, sovereign, the all-powerful truth.

I've known a few that would have the entire OT eliminated from the bible simply because some of it does not support evolution. There are some who believe all of Genesis is allegorical and some believe only parts aren't historical. Others believe Adam is real and others believe he's not. Some believe the Flood was local, not global. Some don't believe the Flood ever happened in the first place... all to support evolution, not to support the Word of God.

If the bible were taken in a literal/historical sense then evolution cannot be supported. But since the priority is evolution then it's the bible that must be considered under many conditions. There are no conditions imposed on evolution. Therefore Christ's ancestry, His deity, the Word of God and scripture in general must all be massaged to conform.

It has been stated elsewhere that teaching the literal bible is a "stumblingblock" to bringing others to Christ. It's the bible that's in error, not Darwin's theory. Since the secular have accepted hands-down that evolution is truth then teaching anything else is a lie making the bible look bad.

"Do I have to trash my belief in evolution if I accept the Word of God as truth?"

/Literal
"Yes, God created all as is, not mixing a recipe, baking for millions of years and blessing that which came out of the oven of time"

/Allegorical
"No. You can read scripture differently, inject interpretation of myth where applicable keeping in mind the old writers weren't as wise as we are now or knowledgable in man's scientific conclusions as we are today. You don't have to give up your current beliefs at all."

In any case it's scripture that must bear the burden of condition if evolution is to be believed as taught.

Is it little wonder that teaching scripture as written can be viewed to some as a stumblingblock? Thing is, to teach the art of allegorical reading and instill the option of myth where necessary to protect one's basic ideas of things is not limited to creation. If a myth is made of scripture in this part then myth can also be applied to that part... including, but not only, the virgin birth.

If Creation itself must conform to ideas of vast expanses of time then the miracles of feeding the multitudes must be massaged to explain the apparent age of the fishes when created for how then can a fully matured fish, physically appearing to be months or more in age by all physical evidence, be believed to only be minutes or even hours old? Or is there a limit to God's power of creation in that the larger takes more time to accomplish? We simply do not know the powers of creation and to what extent that power can be wielded by the One who has it. To put a quantitative limit upon creation is to impose man's ignorance upon the power of God.

Scripture says Eve was made after Adam. But this cannot support evolution. Therefore it's allegorical. But, that would make even the myth a lie not reflecting the truth the myth is supposed to support. The metaphorical tale of Eve's creation would be wrong in any case, totally backwards and in error. There had to be both at the same time, not Eve after Adam as stated by scripture. So the "story" is a lie no matter how one looks at it if it's not to be believed as written. It may be easier if Eve were created first but then even that doesn't fit evolution since a virgin birth would need to occur. Eve could not come after Adam whether historical or allegorical if evolution is to be supported in this event of creation of mankind.

Therefore there must be another answer for how could the bible be correct? It then must be assumed Adam and Eve were not the first man and woman. But if that was the case then why was it necessary to create Eve from Adam in the first place? No matter how one looks at it, scripture is wrong for placing Eve's creation after Adam and not telling us the whole story as it really was. Some say it's because man didn't have knowledge of evolution at that time and would not understand the process God chose to do His work. So God made up a little white lie to appease the ignorant.

It had been suggested elsewhere that apes evolved to a point where God then felt reasonably sure that man evolved far enough to be "in His image". But then, the "story" of Eve's creation is still untrue and a myth thereof still doesn't reflect the truth.

How old is the universe? If one had one of those fishes in his hand, examining it, not knowing where it came from in the first place then how old would you say the fish was by all the evidence before you? I seriously doubt each was made to cookie-cutter perfection. Then if God created "history" in the universe then did God lie to us? No, we lied to ourselves by concluding the fish in our hands was much older than just a few minutes or a couple hours old. We came to that conclusion by the only evidence we have, the fish. It's up to us if we want to believe it was created the same day or not. After all, a notched fin shows as much history as a meteor impact. And the widow, if not knowing where the flour and oil came from that Elijah promised would conclude the flour from the bowl and oil from the jar also had age for flour must come from wheat and oil from olives. Why can creation not have age? Again, we simply do not know the powers of creation nor the mind of God.

Jesus feeds the multitudes (twice)

/Attendee
"Is this fish fresh?"

/Disciple
"You betcha!"

 

[Jeff Mills]

I think it is so so sad that some non-Christians believe we came from Gorillas! I think the only reltionship I have with them is that I eat bananas and appreciate them as coming fro our wonderful Gather in Heaven. Hallelujah!

 

[waitinontheLamb]

Hell seems to be gaping it's jaws lately.

 

[JohnR]

"postmodern" edition of the Bible

It is called the apostasy. Why waste any time on that?

2 Thes. 2:3
Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,

 

[JohnR]

"postmodern" edition of the Bible

It is called the apostasy. Why waste any time on that?

2 Thes. 2:3
Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,