Bible Archives - Page 9 of 12 - Ramblin' with Roger

Prince of Egypt at First Presbyterian on Sunday

It’s so odd that Brian Stokes Mitchell started out playing the minor character Jackpot on the television show Trapper John, MD for seven years.

The youth at my church, First Presbyterian in Albany, are putting on, with the assistance of a number of adults, a production of The Prince of Egypt, the musical based on the 1998 animated film. The storyline is adapted from the Moses story in the biblical Book of Exodus. It will take place this Sunday, March 17 at 12:15 pm

In a decision beyond my understanding, I, who am a bit older than 18, have been asked to perform the song Through Heaven’s Eyes, which my character, Jethro, passes along his staff to Moses. Initially, I was reluctant for a few reasons. One is that it was moderately high in my range and modulates even higher. Another reason is that it’s sung in the movie by Brian Stokes Mitchell, only the greatest male singer who regularly performs on Broadway. It’s so odd that he started out playing, as Brian Mitchell, the minor character Jackpot on the television show Trapper John, MD for seven years.

The song also has a lot of tricky lyrics. Thrice it goes “So how can you” or So how do you”, and I had to note that the verbs that follow are in backward alphabetical order – see, measure, judge – which has helped propel the rest of the phrases. Other lines are difficult to spit out clearly in some sections, such as “cool fresh spring”; lots of consonants.

I thought about it quite a bit. But when the director wanted to know whether or not I would participate, I became tired of my own indecision, so I just said yes, masochist that I am.

Meanwhile, listen to the far superior Mitchell version HERE or HERE.

Oddly, this is NOT the first time I ended up singing a Stephen Schwartz song I thought was high in my range. I was in a production of Godspell in New Paltz, NY in 1975 or 1976. Initially, I was given We Beseech Thee to sing, well within my range. Later, though, the director gave me All Good Gifts instead, which was not.

A political false equivalence

Romney has apparently followed the law. But to those have been given much, much is expected.

There’s this blogger I came across who I like. But I was puzzled by a comparison made between President Obama’s birth certificate and Gov. Romney’s tax returns, as being similarly not newsworthy.

In the case of the birth certificate, it was authenticated to a degree acceptable to anyone who isn’t a conspiracy theorist.

Whereas the tax returns are interesting because they were not released, save for the last two years, though a self-provided “summary” was made available. Truth is, I don’t care whether Romney releases the documents or not. It DOES, though, speak to his transparency, or lack of same, for his father George set the bar when he ran for President back in the 1960s and put out a dozen years of returns.

The Gospel lesson a couple of weeks back was Mark 10:17-27, about the rich young man who followed the law. In verse 21: “And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, ‘You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.’ Disheartened by the saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.”

Further, “And Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, ‘How difficult it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!’ And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said to them again, ‘Children, how difficult it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.”

Romney has seemingly followed the law, doing the absolute minimum of what is required. But to those who have been given much, much is expected. I believe it is reasonable that he makes a good-faith, and precedented, attempt to show us whether he is a tax dodger, since it might give us some insight into the fiscal policies he would initiate, were he become President.

Not incidentally, the sermon addressed this 9th-century explanation/rationalization of this Scripture, suggesting that it was referring to a place called The Eye of the Needle, where a camel could get through, but not if it were overburdened by lots of stuff. But as my pastor indicated, and this article agrees: “There is no evidence for such a gate, nor record of the reprimand of the architect who may have forgotten to make a gate big enough for the camel and rider to pass through unhindered.”

L is for Lost Books of the Bible

There are stories in these “lost books ” about the gaps in Jesus’ life; the standard Biblical narrative skips from infancy to the story at the temple when he was about 12, then skips again to being baptized by John the Baptiser.

From one of our locally owned-and-operated bookstores, I bought this deeply discounted tome called Lost Books of the Bible, compiled by William Hone, and published in 1926, though my copy was considerably newer than that. One reviewer says the work “marked the beginning of a new era in Biblical scholarship. They are of inestimable value to an understanding of Christianity past and present.” In the preface, Hone writes: “This collection…is published, without prejudice or motive, save that the reader…may be free to enjoy and hold his own opinion of these ancient and beautiful writings.” For instance, in the First Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus, Joseph had sought a midwife, but this proved to be unnecessary.

One current position about these books notes: Are there lost books of the Bible? No there aren’t. “But that hasn’t stopped people from saying there are. The Christian church didn’t establish the Word of God. Instead, the Christian church recognized it.
“My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me,” (John 10:27).
Interesting to me, the books that are part of the Roman Catholic, or Douay–Rheims, Bible are considered apocryphal. I find this to be too bad. The inclusion of the warriors in the Maccabees books makes a better contrast to the non-warrior Savior.

Whereas others claim: Most followers of churches using the King James Bible feel they have the complete book with all the writings used by the first church and the nation of Israel before it. This work presents evidence that this is not true.

My suggestion has always been to read for oneself. There are interesting stories in these “lost books “about the gaps in Jesus’ life; the standard Biblical narrative skips from infancy to the story at the temple when He was about 12, then skips again to being baptized by John the Baptiser. I must say that The Childhood of the Saviour (Infancy Gospel of Thomas) suggests a less than Prince of Peace-like fellow.

But what also interests me is how the Bible that is extant, with the 66 books, was also not always as it now presented. Origen (215) omits the epistles of James and Jude. The inclusion of Hebrews is doubted by a few writers. Cyril (340), the Bishops of the Council of Laodices (364), and Gregory (375) all omit Revelation, though by 390, the Bible “perfectly agrees with ours.” Revelation, it is safe to say, is the most perplexing book of the Bible.

Here’s one video to check out (note the music) and this beginning of a lengthy series. But there’s a lot more out there.

ABC Wednesday – Round 10

D is for Dominion

I’m a “replenish” kind of guy.

When I was growing up, Canada was referred to as a dominion. It achieved that status, rather than as a colony, per the British North America Act of 1867: “Whereas the Provinces of Canada [i.e., Ontario and Quebec], Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom …shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada; and on and after that Day those Three Provinces shall form and be One Dominion under that Name accordingly…

Title to the Northwest Territories was transferred by the Hudson’s Bay Company in 1868, and the Province of Manitoba was the first created out of it, and the first province created by Ottawa instead of London, in 1870.” Other provinces joined after that point, all without need of the permission of the crown.

Apparently, dominion status ended in 1982 “when the British and Canadian parliaments passed parallel acts – the Canada Act, 1982 ([UK] 1982, c.11) in London, and the Constitution Act 1982 in Ottawa. Thereafter, the United Kingdom was formally absolved of any remaining responsibility for, or jurisdiction over, Canada; and Canada became responsible for her own destiny. In a formal ceremony on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, the Queen signed both acts into law on April 17, 1982.”

But in that period between 1867 and 1982, Canada declared war on its own, in 1939. And subsequent to 1982, “the federal government continues to produce publications and educational materials that specify the currency of these official titles.” So I’m still not 100% clear I understand all of this correctly. (The picture, BTW, is from a 1945 Dominion of Canada $50 Eighth Victory Loan War Bond.)

The other reference to dominion I grew up with came from Genesis 1:28 of the Bible: “And God blessed [ Adam and Eve ] and God said unto them, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” (KJV) Some folks seem to focus on the “subdue” part, and find that using up our natural resources is OK, that God has given permission. Others tend to focus on “replenish the earth” and believe that having dominion over the earth means to be a good steward of the earth. When the United Kingdom had dominion over Canada, it meant that it had a responsibility to care for it, not to merely exploit its resources. I’m a “replenish” kind of guy.

ABC Wednesday – Round 10

Helping Those Who Ask For Money

One of the factors about giving out money isn’t whether it’s a legit request; if they’re lying, it’s on them, not me.

Periodically, but especially in November and December, I contemplate my personal policy with regards to those who come up to me and ask me for money. Some folks, including a former pastor of mine, are adamant that one ought not to; there are registered charities for that purpose. I’ve not been comfortable with that absolutist position, though, and I take it on a case-by-case basis.

There was a day this fall, though, where my instincts were just…off. Something had happened at work earlier in the day that frustrated me. When I got off the bus downtown, a guy asked me for money to buy some food. As it turned out, we were right in front of a Subway sub shop. My first instinct was to say, “Hey, why don’t we go in here, and I’ll buy you a sub?” I had the time (it was a Thursday and choir was in an hour) and the means (a $5 sub wouldn’t break me). Moreover, I wouldn’t have to worry that the money was going to be used for another (“inappropriate”) purpose, and, by going into a well-lit restaurant, I would feel relatively safe and secure. But my answer was “no”; and it was as though I was watching myself say that, because it surely couldn’t have been me. It bothered me for DAYS, because my grumpiness had robbed me of the opportunity to do good.

It didn’t help that the lectionary reading a few weeks later was Matthew 25, all that good stuff about seeing the hungry and feeding them.

That wasn’t the only thing that went wrong that day. After that incident, I then went to the library and gave someone what turned out to be bad advice about whether he had time to get a coffee before his computer time came up; I didn’t realize that the computer clocks were 10 minutes fast, and he missed his turn and had to rejoin the queue, so I felt bad about giving such lousy advice. I was so distraught that I didn’t even end up going to choir, but rather ended up calling a few of my friends, none of whom were home.

One of the factors about giving out money isn’t whether it’s a legit request; if they’re lying, it’s on them, not me. It IS about security, though, and I am loath to pull out my wallet in front of strangers, especially at night. I’ve recently started carrying dollar coins – another good use for them – which I can dig out of my pocket, which is also easier.

Do any of you struggle with this?