Kings: A Review

As we’ve discussed around here before, part of the biblical text that makes it most enduring is how it is reread and refashioned in different contexts. For millennia, culture has taken and retold these stories. Perhaps the most recent example of how Biblical stories are updated is found in the newest dramatic series on NBC, Kings.

Kings retells the story of the David narrative in the books of 1 and 2 Samuel. It is set in the nation of Gilboa, a modern nation replete with cell phones, modern aircraft, and skyscrapers. Gilboa is ruled by King Silas, a man who has been a successful soldier in the past, but now is trying to lead his nation toward a time of peace. But that is complicated by the nation of Gath. Gilboa has been locked in a bitter war with Gath for several years. Recently arriving in his court is a young soldier, David Shepherd, who has recently become a national hero.

David single handedly faced down an enemy supertank (the Goliath, natch) and rescued several soldiers. One of the soldier he rescued turned out to be the crowned prince of Gilboa, Silas’ eldest son Jack. In appreciation for his impressive service, Silas reassigns David to his court in the capital city of Shiloh. Once there, David meets such impressive people as Michelle (the alluring daughter of King Silas), the Rev. Samuals, and General Abner. (Corresponding to Saul’s daughter Michal, the prophet Samuel, and ummm General Abner). I’ve only seen the first episode so far, but it’s like catnip for a Old Testament geek like myself. The details are pretty impressive . For example, David refuses to wear the flak jacket before taking on the tank (It wasn’t a good fit) and when the Reverend Samuels tells Silas God has rejected him and chosen another, Silas grasps his shoulder (though he doesn’t actually tear it). Not everything works. God’s divine favor resting on Silas is depicted by several butterflys that land on his head. Strange. Also, Silas insinuates strongly that Jonathon is gay, which adds a distracting edge to his impending friendship with David.

But the strongest reason I look forward to this series (they’ve already completed around 13 episodes or so) is that it deals forcefully with the reality of God in the lives of people. I expected that the characters would mention God very obliquely, if at all. But the main characters of David, Silas, and Samuals each speak explicitly to the central role that God plays in each of their lives.

David and Saul are two of the most fascinating characters in the Old Testament. Few other people in the Bible were as capable of such incredible acts of butchery and destruction as these two. But one of them was hand-picked to be the first king of Israel, and the other was a man after God’s own heart. They are compelling figures in any age and time.

Each of the first two episodes are available online at NBC. Watch the rest of the season on (naturally) Sunday evenings.

Reading Gaps

Gaps.

Every text contains them. No matter how carefully written, no matter how much attention the author gives to fill in all the details, narratives always contain gaps. Whenever we read a text, we fill them in with our own thoughts.

And this includes biblical texts. The church is notorious for filling gaps in the biblical narrative. One cluster of examples surrounds the birth narratives of Jesus as told in Luke and Matthew’s gospels. Famously, we aren’t told how many wise men were there, though the church filled in this gap by assuming that there were three (and even naming them?!). Another example is the idea that the wise men and the shepherds visited the First Family at the same time. One gap from the Old Testament includes the misconception that the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil was an apple (I suspect that it was actually a kiwi fruit). None of this is in the text.

One big gap that has been consistently filled (and the precise example that triggered this post) concerns the story of Noah and the ark. We find this story in Genesis 6 and it relates the familiar story of the wicked world, the noble Noah and his kin. God tells Noah to build an ark, which he commences to do. Noah builds the ark while his neighbors mock him and deride him. But then when the rains come, his neighbors see the error of their ways and beg and plead with him to let them in. But he can’t (or won't) and they die along with the rest of humanity.

The gap in this story that has been filled in of course, is Noah’s neighbors. The Bible says nothing about Noah’s neighbors. Some are adamant that Noah preached to his neighbors who laughed at him for building an ark. But that view doesn’t come from the text. (I suspect that the view comes from children's Bibles.) So when a commenter on another thread says that “Noah was ridiculed to scorn” in order to explain why many people find Southern Baptists distasteful, he’s citing a story of his own devising.

Oftentimes, we fill in the gaps with our own ideas, which we call theology. Theology, at its most basic level, as our attempt to fill in the gaps in the biblical narrative. How does baptism work? What's the best metaphor for atonement? What does the sovereignty of God look like? 99% of theological disputation is probably reducible to arguing over what interpretation best fills the gaps. (And denominations form over how we fill these gaps). Perhaps this post will remind ME that these gaps exist and I would be better served exercising some hermeneutical humility as I recognize the gaps in my own reading of these texts.

From Alan to Schlomo

It's not often that two of my favorite areas of interest watermelon seed spitting and Manimal reruns Dallas Cowboys football and Old Testament studies, overlaps.

But it appears that Alan Veingrad, an old name from the Cowboy's 1992 Superbowl run, has converted to Hassidic Judaism. See the Dallas Morning News story here.

He's also changed his first name from Alan to Schlomo.


(Schlomo is Hebrew for Solomon and is no reflection on Veingrad's impressive 40 time).

The Forum

Professional organizations exist for almost all occupations. Tailors (Professional Association of Custom Clothiers ( PACC ), court reporters (National Court Reporters Association) and sales professionals (National Association of Sales Professionals (NASP)) each have their own organization.

In the field of Biblical Studies, the Society of Biblical Literature is the primary professional organization. In recent years, the SBL has taken a more active role in disseminating its scholarship to a larger audience through an online journal called “The Forum”. Readers of this blog might be interested in the current issue.

They'll Publish Anything These Days.....

This book looks particularly boring. I suppose, if one wanted to, that one could purchase a copy here.

I feel like Steve Martin in The Jerk except I would say “The ISBN numbers are here!! The ISBN numbers are here!!!!”

On Jobs and Fulfillment

I’m drawn to some of the darker texts in the bible. Ecclesiastes, some of the Psalms and Job are the film noir of the Old Testament. But I was struck by the comfort and wisdom found in Ecclesiastes 5:18-20

“For this is what I have seen to be good: it is fitting to eat and drink and find enjoyment in all the toil with which one toils under the sun the few days of the life God gives us; for this is our lot. Likewise all to whom God gives wealth and possessions and whom he enables to enjoy them and to accept their lot and find enjoyment in their toil—this is the gift of God. For they will scarcely brood over the days of their lives, because God keeps them occupied with the joy of their hearts.”

Almost every person I know, in and out of the ministry, is dissatisfied with their current job or looking forward to their next job more than they are to their current position.

One whom God grants fulfillment in their occupation is richly blessed indeed.

The Angry Sermon

Well, I preached the “Angry Sermon” yesterday morning. Actually that was the title of my Word file. For Sunday morning I called it “A Lamentable Monday” where I described last Monday in detail and then looked to biblical texts that help us to deal with days like that. I settled on the lament psalms as psalms that were written for Mondays like last week.

There are more lament psalms than hymns of praise in the Bible. Those who suffer and work their way through frustrating days (like Monday) or awful days for those who experience great loss can find solace in the psalms.

We looked at Psalm 12 (a lament for someone attacked unjustly), Psalm 6 (a lament for a sick person) and Psalm 88, the angriest psalm in the Bible. I called it the Mariana Trench of the Old Testament.

There are four things we can learn from these lament psalms:

1. They remind us that we are part of a community that has experienced these emotions before. Evangelicals in general, and Baptists in particular often ignore the rich religious tradition that came before us. The psalms remind us that others have suffered before us.

2. By praying these psalms we can transform our own prayers. Dietrich Bonhoeffer said “Whoever has begun to pray the psalms earnestly and regularly, will soon give leave to those other, easy prayers of their own because they lack the power, passion, and fire to be found in the Psalter.” Praying the psalms provides a powerful antidote to the “Lord, we just wanna” prayers that characterize so much of church life.

3. The lament psalms push us to communicate with God. Even the deepest, darkest, most painful psalms are still addressed to God. Angry prayers still have a seed of hope in them that God listens and that God can change things.

4. They remind us to be authentic. The psalmists were authentic in their prayers. They unashamedly shared their true feelings. Far too often today we keep our church relationships superficial. (“I’m fine, how are you?” “Fine” “How is work?” “Good!” Etc.)

I am convinced that part of what turns people off to church is the superficiality of church members (including myself).

Our church posts mp3 versions of sermons, contact me if you suffer from insomnia and would like that link.

Digital Invective

The echocardiogram revealed that Scooter's heart has a small bit of seepage among the chambers, but apparently that is true for most people. Her doctor's nurse indicated that her heart is fine. Apparently she is prone to fainting spells (if prone means once every three years or so) . I very much appreciate all of those who prayed for her well-being. It is a blessing to hear from brothers in Christ you never knew you had.

Pardon the following extended rant. I don't rant well. Go read Spleen or Screeds for some real quality rage. I’m hoping that the transformation of my rage to pixels will allow it to mellow and depart. (Actually, as I type this now a day later, I'm doing fine). Be aware that there is nothing in what follows that will be either redemptive or edifying.

Caveat lector.

Yesterday began with a severe lack of sleep from the night before. My bride is working evenings right now and our quality time for a “daily dialogue” is between the hours of 11 pm and 12 am.

When I arrived at work Monday morning I discovered that my 5 day old computer hard drive had crashed. Frustration mounted as I realized that I was going to have to reconstruct some documents for a 9:00 meeting. I did complete some of the work, but at the cost of my sanity.

In the meeting we discussed how we would apportion a 5% raise that is the first raise our state legislature has passed in six years. As a colleague of mine said after the meeting, “I feel like we’re a bunch of skinny rats fighting over a crust of bread.”

Following the rat meeting, I found out that an insurance company had not received my medical records from my doctor’s office despite the fact that they have faxed them repeatedly. I went by the doctor’s office and said to the secretary “I need some help dealing with an idiot insurance company.” She replied “Most of them are” and graciously rendered assistance. Then I reminded myself not to use the word idiot.

When I returned to my office, I had a hostile student waiting to talk with me about one of his classes. For a department chair, this is not unusual. Probably four or five times a semester I’ll have a student come by to register a complaint or just vent about their classes. But our conversation revealed that his was a class he took TWO years ago. He had one of my colleagues for the class and wanted to protest his “F”. After an extended conversation revealed that he had not even spoken with his professor first, I encouraged him to do so.

Ironically, while Dave was spending some time with Psalm 78, I was turning to Psalm 30, a beautiful thanksgiving psalm which helped a lot. I then decided to start on my sermon for Sunday (our pastor is attending a conference next weekend, in that state, and he foolishly asked me to preach in his stead). I’ve never written a sermon when I was mad before, and I look forward to seeing how it turns out.

When I arrived at home I noted Shrimpy’s passing. I was unsure if s/he was sleeping or dead, but when I put him/her in the water, s/he floated upside down. Scooter is at pre-teen camp through Friday, so I have until then to figure out how to break the news to her. The time honored sit-com solution (going out and buying a new tadpole) is not an option because Skeeter saw the corpse. Maybe Shrimpy could “get better” all of the sudden…hmm.

Then after dinner I hustled Squealer off to bed and got ready to end my day. I vegged with my new issue of Christianity Today and my old issue of Sports Illustrated from last week.

Then, around 9:45, as I began to drift off to sleep the phone rang. It was the student. The student from earlier. The one asking about his grade. The one who had waited for two years, but couldn’t wait until 8:00 the next morning when I’d be back in the office. We conversed. I encouraged him to come by the office Tuesday morning. He did.

I’ll tell you about my meeting with him tomorrow.

Songs of Life

Last weekend I had the incredible joy to return to Waco, Texas. Kadie and I moved away from Waco around six years ago and we loved returning to our old stomping grounds. What brought us back was the opportunity to participate in a joint symposium on the Psalms by Baylor University and Truett Theological seminary. The conference lasted from Thursday through Saturday evening.

The Book of Psalms is the most compelling book in the Bible (and yes I am biased here). I have studied, preached and written on these prayers of the Hebrew community for years. I love them. John Calvin once wrote that “there is not a single emotion known to man that is not somewhere expressed in one of the psalms.” This prayer book offers a voice for all of our experiences in life. The psalms explore the joyful heights of praise to God, the craggy depths of communal lament to the blasphemous questioning times of our lives when we even wonder if God exists at all.

This symposium was a wonderful time of absorbing and discussing papers on the use and importance of psalms in the life of the Christian community today by some of the top scholars from around the world today. The depth of knowledge of these women and men are absolutely amazing. What was refreshing (in a day when Academia is largely unconcerned about anything other than itself) was their passion for the use of this scripture in the church.

Plus we got to eat a lot of great Tex-Mex food that we do not get in our state.

Interspersed into the next few weeks of blogs will be some of my thoughts and opinions triggered by the conference.

It is good to be back!

More Valuable Than Answers

It has been an article of faith since my earliest days that you do not question God. God is God and you are not, so keep quiet and unquestioningly accept whatever happens. But there has always been a nagging feeling in my spirit that this statement is unacceptable. This feeling was confirmed when I had children of my own and I looked at this issue from a father’s perspective. If my kids have a question, then they are free to ask it. I may choose not to answer it. I may not be able to communicate the answer to them. But I do not punish them for asking. (Although I do still expect obedience).

Those who say that we must not question God cite several concerns. There is an assumption that asking God questions infringes on His sovereignty and is in some way disrespectful. Or there is a concern that to ask questions of God shows a lack of faith or trust in His all sufficiency. Surely it is a sign of arrogance to ask questions of God?

I respectfully disagree. In fact, I am convinced we must ask God our questions for at least three reasons:

1) It puts us in a position of humility. When I ask a question, it is a tacit confession that I am unable to get the answers myself. It is not arrogance to ask a question, it is putting yourself in a position of dependency. Asking a question implies humility and a trust from the petitioner to the petitioned.

2) Asking questions about the conditions of this world implies a rejection of living in a sinful world. If we ask no questions, then we tacitly accept the injustice and the misfortune of this world. We should rage against the poverty and the oppression and ask God why this goes on. The satisfied ask no questions.

3) I believe that the biblical point of asking questions is not to get answers, but to see God.

Consider three brief examples from the biblical narrative.

Habakkuk asked God how he could use the Babylonians to punish Judah. God met him at the watchtower and told him to sit back and be amazed.

Job asked God a series of questions and then God appears in Chapter 38 and returns the favor. Job concludes in 42:5 “I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear, But now my eye sees You.”

On the cross Jesus quotes Psalm 22 which asks God why he has been forsaken. God does not answer him, but Jesus perfectly fulfills his atoning sacrifice.

God never promises answers to our questions. But answers are not the point of biblical questions. He gives us something infinitely more valuable than answers: He gives us His presence.

Fleeing to Mystery

Partly this is a follow up to Bobby's statement that "Sometimes our education can come between us and a meaningful experience with our greatest loves."

In the philosophy survey class that I inflict on unfortunate undergrads every semester, I put off talking about God until the last third of the semester. He never waits his turn however and pops up earlier as we look at issues like determinism, epistemology and ethics. But I work hard to defer as many questions as possible until we get to the final section of the class dealing with philosophy of Religion.

I put this section last so that we have time to build a sense of community in the class. By the 11th week of the semester or so, the students have hammered out a sense of trust with one another. They realize that they will not get pummeled by me for discussing their non-beliefs or beliefs in class.

We look at several traditional arguments for the existence of God. Specifically we cover the ontological, teleological, and the cosmological. We conclude with the cosmetological argument (the existence of God is definitively proven by the invention of women’s make-up—truly a glorious manifestation of His grace).

Then we look at the most powerful argument AGAINST the existence of God: the presence of evil and suffering.

It is here that I encounter the greatest sense of frustration from Christian students. Very quickly they want to emphasize that God’s ways are not our ways Is 55:8-9. While I don’t want to get into dueling scriptures with them, I do want to point out a few things:

1) in context it does say seek the Lord. While God is obviously busy at work with plans and approaches beyond our ken, this should be our last statement, not our first.

2) If we are commanded to love God with all our mind (Mark 12:30), then we should...you know, use it.

3) While we may be content to shrug off questions and trust in God, nonbelievers aren't. We should be prepared "to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you" (1 Peter 3:15).

After we negotiate these verses, many times students will argue that we should simply not question God at all. They then do what I call “fleeing to God’s mystery”. They state that we should not be asking God these types of questions. God does not answer to us, what does the flea have to say to the elephant, etc. Tomorrow we will finish this thread with a look at the legitimacy of asking God questions...

Jehovah and Unicorns

BH had a great comment on my last post, so I wanted to repost it here:

"I don't know, Taran. I've read your multiple-entry treatise and found it fascinating. But your final push for striking the word altogether seems a little extreme. I think people using a word ignorantly but honestly and with the same intensity of worship as they use other (correct) words does God no ill service. He sees our hearts, and he can see we are honoring Him. To call for a ban on the word is to tempt a rift. I say the following advisedly, and with no malice: Sometimes our education can come between us and a meaningful experience with our greatest loves."

Thank you for reading the posts. My fear in blogging, as in F2F conversations, is that at best, I often communicate only narcolepsy. I am pleased that you shrugged off the effects of extended exposure to my writing style.

My concern in even raising the misuse of Jehovah is that it is a bit pedantic for this lite little blog and even the risk that it seems condescending. To advocate education cuts a bit against the grain of evangelical thinking. Part of this comes from our Protestant forefathers. Luther said that reason was a whore that will serve any master. Of course, as one of my profs once said…Luther turned around and slept with her. Luther (for whom I literally thank God) was a skilled polemicist, who often powerfully utilized reason, but I disagree with him on this point.

Reason is fallible and flawed, as are everything else in this fallen world. But the alternative is obscurantism. While there are many problems with the development of biblical studies over the last 300 years, I believe that it has greatly increased our understanding of the biblical world and the biblical text. If impassioned ignorance is equal to piety, then cheeziness and empty words will overtake our churches and our pulpits. Indeed I fear they already are gaining ground.


Let me put it another way: Do you believe in unicorns?



How is this tangential and rather silly question revevant? Did you know that the interpreters of the KJV in 1611 not only believed in them but translated unicorns into the biblical text? I own a facsimile of the 1611 and this webpage is correct.

Why do the modern translations not mention unicorns? What could cause them to break the traditional rendering of this word?

Simply because subsequent linguistic study demonstrated that the English understanding of the Hebrew was incorrect. Should unicorns be kept out of their rightful place in worship merely because of our "education"? ;)


Yes they should. So should the term Jehovah.


Your final sentence is important and I will respond to it in my next post. Thank you for the conversation.

Final Thoughts (IV)

So what to do? I think that there are at least four areas of concern about the use of Jehovah in worship.

1) The importance of names. Throughout the Old Testament there is an emphasis on names and the meaning of names. E.g. Laughter (Isaac), He struggles with God (Israel), Abraham (Father of Nations) , The Glory has Departed (Ichabod), etc. God was very precise in how he revealed his name to Moses. We need to reflect that precision. Given all of the scriptures that emphasize the importance of calling on the name of God, we need to try to honor them.

2) Ignorance of the church. As an evangelical community, we latch onto fads and the success of others. A herd instinct develops and we tend to follow the lead of others rather uncritically. One of these is the uncritical acceptance of Hebrew words in our worship. We use words with which we are unfamiliar. As the great Inigo Montoya once said “I do not think it means what you think it means.” We should educate our congregations on the importance of worship.

3) Since it is a term most closely associated with a cult, I think that we should rethink our use of it in the context of worship. If we were using a term like “Latter Day Saints” in worship, I would recommend restricting its use as well. (The LDS has its own problems with the Old Testament). I am not sure that it is possible to use the term Jehovah without lending credibility to the Jehovah’s Witnesses group.

4) Jesus commands us to worship him “in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24). The use of Jehovah is inconsistent with worshipping God in truth. Jehovah is not nor has ever been a true name of God.

For these reasons, I believe that the church should eliminate references in choruses and on banners and certainly in sermons to Jehovah. We should know better.

Your Thoughts??

(I know what you're thinking: "The next thing he will tell us is that the Chinese character for crisis isn't really a combination of danger and opportunity.")

A-E-I-O-U and Sometimes Adonai (III)

There are three Hebrew words used to refer to God in the Old Testament: Elohim, Adonai and Yahweh.

Elohim means simply “God” and is found in Gen 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Sometimes it is shortened to “El” and put next to a verbal form. E.g. El Shaddai (God our nourisher) or El Elyon (God the most High). It appears around 2,800 times in the Old Testament.

Adonai is used 439 times in the Old Testament and means Lord. It is a word applied to both human leaders and to God, just like in English.

The most important divine name for God is Yahweh. This is the name of God revealed to Moses at the burning bush. It is a form of the verb “to be” and is translated as I AM. In many contemporary translations it is rendered into English in all capital letters (LORD) in order to distinguish it from Adonai (Lord). It is used around 6,800 times in the Bible and it the most common name attributed to God.

In order to avoid misusing the name of the Lord (and shattering the third commandment), observant Jews decided that it was easier to simply not speak the revealed name of the Lord at all. So instead of saying the word Yahweh, they would replace it with the word Adonai (also translated Lord). That way they could never misuse the name of the Lord because they never used it.

But they soon had a problem. As noted above, the Old Testament includes frequent references to Yahweh. So how could they read the biblical text aloud without pronouncing the most divine name of God?

In order to continue to read the text aloud, they would simply substitute the term Adonai (Lord) for Yahweh (LORD) as they read. In order to remind themselves to say “Adonai” as they read “Yahweh” they altered the vowels of the text. THey changed the vowels to provide a visual triggere to remind them not to speak the name of Yahweh.

Specifically, they would take the consonants of Yahweh (YHWH) and combine it with the vowels of Adonai (a-o-a). This resulting Frankenstein of a word would read “Yahovah” or Jahovah. When transliterated into English, the result is Jehovah—again, a misreading of the text. The point was simply to remind them to read Adonai.

But later translators did not pick up on this nuance and simply read Jehovah instead.

And tomorrow --> Does it really matter?

A Hebrew Sojourn (Part II)

This entry grew in the blogging. I will break it into two parts.

First, the Hebrew language is consonantal in nature. By that I mean that there are no written vowels in it. It is constructed entirely of consonants in its written form. There are vowels, but they are only expressed when the Hebrew is spoken, not when written. Part of the beauty of the Hebrew language is that it is inherently more poetic than most because words can have several meanings.

For example, cat, acute, cut, cite, act would all be acceptable renderings of “ct” if English operated in the same way as Hebrew. Since the vowel(s) do not appear, we would have to look at the overall context of the sentence to determine which of those meanings that "ct" has. Now, context will dictate the meaning of Hebrew words and provide the reader with a high degree of precision in correctly understanding the meaning of the text.

Around the ninth century a group of scholars called the Masoretes became worried that the Hebrew language would die out and that no one would remember how to pronounce it. So they invented a vowel system that could be written underneath the consonantal text. Thus their text is referred to as the Masoretic Text. This text is the basis for all major translations today (NKJV, NIV, HSB, etc). (BTW most Jewish scholars do not use the text with the vowels written in. They refer to the vowels as “training wheels”).

This page illustrates the difference between a text with vowels and a text without vowels. Scroll about half way down to see a line of Hebrew without vowels. Then scroll down a bit further to see a line with vowels. The vowels are a series of dots and dashes underneath the Hebrew words.

(Just to throw a little controversy into this entry, most who read this blog would concur that the consonants (written from around 2000 to 100 BC) are inspired, but what about the vowels (added to the text 8 centuries after Christ)? Are the vowels, added centuries after the writing of even the New Testament inspired in the same way as the original text?? Just thinking aloud).

But here is the key point of this entry: The Hebrew language is composed of consonants with vowels added at a later time.

SO WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!

(Tomorrow we will look at the names of God in Hebrew.)

I Say Potato, You say Jehovah (Part I)

Part of the problem with becoming specialized in any field is that it makes you more rigorous than others in your approach to that field. Normally this has little downside. If I am a medical doctor I may lament the ignorance in common sayings like carrots are good for eyesight or cracking your knuckles is bad for them, but at the end of the day it doesn't much matter.

But when your field is Religious Studies, then you are constantly confronted with many popular fads that I have trouble stomaching. Most of the time I keep my mouth shut. (Maybe I need to vent my spleen). Kadie chides me for being over critical. Few sermons (most emphatically INCLUDING my own) escape my evaluation completely. Most of the time I mutter to myself and chalk it down to academic pride/arrogance.

But what if people are continually misusing the name of the Lord? Or what if they are using a name that appears nowhere in scripture? Of course, the name to which I refer is Jehovah. The term Jehovah appears in numerous praise choruses e.g. In the Presence of Jehovah and Days of Elijah and even an old Amy Grant tune. Rarely a day goes by in my church that it is not used in the worship service.

Of course, the great problem with all of this is that the name Jehovah appears nowhere in the Hebrew text. Remarkably, in a fact overlooked/ignored by most everyone, it doesn't even appear in any modern translation of the bible either (uhhh....except one.)


So where does it come from????

(Tune in tomorrow for part II, same Bat time......)