Word of God gets patois translation

| 27/12/2011

bible_0.JPG(BBC): The Bible is, for the first time, being translated into Jamaican patois. It's a move welcomed by those Jamaicans who want their mother tongue enshrined as the national language – but opposed by others, who think learning and speaking English should be the priority. In the Spanish Town Tabernacle near the capital, Kingston, the congregation is hearing the word of God in the language of the street. At the front of the concrete-block church, a young man and woman read alternate lines from the Bible. This is the Gospel of St Luke in Jamaican patois – or more precisely, "Jiizas – di buk we Luuk rait bout im".

The sound of the creole, developed from English by West African slaves in Jamaica's sugar plantations 400 years ago, has an electrifying effect on those listening.

Several women rise to testify, in patois, to what it means to hear the Bible in their mother tongue. "It's almost as if you are seeing it," says a woman, referring to the moment when Jesus is tempted by the Devil.

Read more here


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: World News

About the Author ()

Comments (86)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    Your post is one of the most hateful and ridiculous that I have read in a long time.

    Spirituals may indeed have had double meanings but that by no means negated the reality of the faith of those who sang them since they carried their faith with them into the terrestrial Promised Land.

    As for the nonsense you have written elsewhere people everywhere bring their cultural traditions to bear on how they practise Christianity. Northern Europeans were somewhat cold, emotionless and intellectual while Africans brought their exuberance which is rather nearer the Middle Eastern original.

    Now what was that you were saying about "ignorance, bigotry, and cluelessness operating under the guise of enlightenment and knowledge"?

  2. Anonymous says:

    Yu no wha a lang time mi aweit fi dis? Mi nevah hunderstand dat dere henglis virshun, neybah. Prez da iyah wan. Mek mi git me kopi quik time.

  3. The Watcher says:

    I say somebody is looking to make money.  Even the word of God in this 2012 people will want to pick to pieces just to make extra bucks, cant believe it has anything to do with understanding the truth.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Africans didn't have their own language in their own country? Before they were invaded, made to leave their own country, made slaves and starved?

    Irish didn't have their own language in their own country? Before they were invaded, made t leave their own country, six counties still occupied and made slaves and starved? 

    How many speak Welsh?

    How many speak Gaelic?

    Who prohibited them from learning and speaking their own language?

    Thought we had progressed.  Ha, obviously not! 

    Let the people of Jamaica who are interested in doing this decide and each individual should be respected if they want to hear the Bible in Patois.  Did the Creator not create all languages?  If you don't believe in a Creator, then the animal kingdom should be respected too, they have their own language too!


  5. Anonymous says:

    Who said the stories/parables/gospels/teachings in the Bible were spoken in English….if you think about it…could they have even been spoken in English?  Who wrote them down…they were written in English? 

    Were the first words ever spoken in English?

    • Slowpoke says:

      Yes, as a matter of fact, when Adam and Eve had me, they spoke to me and "learned" me, how to use a qwerty keyboard on my Macbook.

      None of those arabic, frenchy, roman, germanic, asian…keyboards.

      I hope that answers your question.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Don't understand!  How many books have been translated into many different languages? Who is to say one language is correct from the other? Was 'English' the first language? Does it matter if people are learning from their own 'language'? How many languages were killed….Irish language? Welsh language? People in the world not allowed to speak their language, in Africa and elsewhere?

    Don't understand if people and individuals are looking into their life and language and learning….isn't that a postiive thing to do? 

    Everybody became so right and righteous that everybody has to do what somebody else tells them to do?  Well, if that is the case, be quiet and let people get on with learning if it is not hurting somebody else.  Go tell the big money making preachers in USA and all the rest.  No, you want to stop people speaking their own dialect, language….whichever word you wish to choose. 

    I read the Dancehall Dictionary….interesting!! Did you know that existed?That's what life is about, don't stop people learning and stop being judgemental!

  7. Anonymous says:

    Rubbish! The bible should be left alone as is.  All Jamaicans can read the bible both in English and Patois, even in Hebraic.

    • Anonymous says:

      Quick on the rubbish!?

      'The bible should be left as is.'  So the bible is not Bible?

       What is as is?  How many times has it been changed, adapted….just look at the covers and inside 'adapted by……'

      Is it original….?

      No one can say 'rubbish' when no one knows!  Or is it Rubbish?

      • Anonymous says:

        anon 2330 some of you children need to get off this thread and stop talking rubbish.

        If you dont believe in the bible/God that is fine that is your choice. Then why did you even come to this thread.

        • Anonymous says:

          I come to this thread because it is hilarious. 🙂

          • Mocker says:

            I come to mock the people who hold inconsistent and preposterous beliefs (i.e., the believers), in the hope that they will stop to think about what they have decided to believe, and will grow to be better people.

    • Just Commentin' says:

      AMEN!!! I agree with you 1001%. The divine holy inspired Word of God should never be fumbled with by those evil sons of perdition who would have the sacred Word mangled into their common unholy vernacular.

      Messing with God's Word is a SIN! A SIN I tell you!!!

      You write the truth! I AGREE! Leave God's word ALONE! Those who translated God's prophets' Holy Writings into English should have been burned at the stake for thier unholy and damnable heresy! They burn in Hell even now for their audacity. Praise God! They burn! Those prideful and seditious translators will be consumed for all eternity in the fires that will not be quenched! Hallelujah!

      The bible tells us that the original writings were perfect!!! If they were perfect then righteous reasoning tells us that they should have been LEFT BE!!!!!!

      Those who have a reverence for God and a hunger for His precious and perfect Word should love God enough and respect His holy scripture enough to learn to read the original scrolls.

      I carry my copies of the scrolls with me to church in a big wheelbarrow, as I am sure you do too, my brother!  Together we pray terrible wrath on those who tamper with and try to change God's matchless ageless immutable Word.

  8. Anonymous says:

    To the writer of 12/28/11 9:45.

    How yuh so follow fashen? hand sew farr yuh canknot even right. 

  9. Shawna Mclaughlin says:

    Such utter nonsense! Patois IS broken English.

  10. seriously? says:

    'best selling book of all time'? I'm not sure that was the motivation of the mythical peopel who 'wrote it. Give a Bible to any teenager anywhere in the world, and the can translate it into 'patois', which is jamaican for 'poor grammar'. What a joke. Yet another caribbean nation crashes headlong into the 18th Century… so long as the words 'sista' and 'covert' are still in there, all will be well.

    • Anonymous says:

      'best selling book of all time'?

      motivation of the mythical peopel

      who 'wrote it

      and the can translate it

      'Patois', which is Jamaican for 'poor grammar'

      What a joke.

      Yet another caribbean nation crashes headlong into the 18th Century

      so long as the words 'sista' and 'covert' are still in there, all wil be well.



    • Anonymous says:

      You are really funny, you are a joke.

  11. Anonymous says:

    Ignoring the sad idiots who mock religion, this may be good news for Christians & illiterates, but it's bad news for getting Jamaicans speaking, spelling, & literate, and able to compete for jobs globally by using English. Perhaps it should be written in both, to teach them how to speak English.

    Everyone is entitled to communicate in their own way but producing books in patois or txt language or Klingon is a luxury, & not really helping anyone. They need to "go too skool an lern to reed an rite proppa and get job not lay on cowch an mayk moor baybees with menee wimmin" etc.

    • Anonymous says:

      What did you say…….????

      Ignoring the sad idiots who mock religion, this may be good news for Christians & illiterates, but it's bad news for getting Jamaicans speaking, spelling, & literate, and able to compete for jobs globally by using English. Perhaps it should be written in both, to teach them how to speak English.
      Everyone is entitled to communicate in their own way but producing books in patois or txt language or Klingon is a luxury, & not really helping anyone. They need to "go too skool an lern to reed an rite proppa and get job not lay on cowch an mayk moor baybees with menee wimmin" etc.

      '…..but it's bad news for getting Jamaicans speaking, spelling & literate, and able to compete for jobs globally by using English.  Perhaps it should be written in both, to teach them how to speak English'

      How old are you?  Obviously you have not been here as long as the Jamaicans have been working this earth 'globally' long before your 'globally' fixated poser words came into being. 

      Why don't you go try picking up a 'real' book rather than your 'globally' uneducated brain and try using your brain that may become 'globally' aware at one skool an lern to reed an rite proppa and get job not lay on cowch an mayke moor baybees with menee wimmin….that sure don't produce any more ignoramus as you.

      Who is the 'them' and 'they'?

    • Anne T. Krist says:

      People who have freed themselves of the preposterous fables of old are, in my experience, generally neither sad nor idiots. In fact, they usually seem quite happy about their enlightenment. Your insults do not constitute anything resembling an argument for the existence of a supernatural being, and I suspect you’ve been working on your Klingon a bit too much. You should try science and cosmology – you appear to need a bit of mind expansion. QAPLA’!! (Klingon for success).

  12. Anonymous says:

    Dont worry it will be brought to Cayman and read in the churches here too.

    • Anonymous says:

      If it was and free, no problem.  How much is government going to pay for each Patois Bible?  How much isa Bible worth?

  13. Anonymous says:

    Like they say in Jamaica "No problem mon"

    Really though, we must ask if we are in our last days, because if a Jamaican has to translate the bible to get his message out, we must be entering the last period of humanity.

  14. Anonymous says:

    The trouble is that people don't read and write patois, they speak it. The written words will not necessarily be as easily recognisable as the speech.

    • Anonymous says:

      Anon 0826 I believe there are local Jamaican newspapers that are written this way. So some of them do read patois.

  15. Anonymous says:

    Their ancestors would roll over in their graves knowing they are blindly following the white God of those same evil men who ripped them from their own families and home land not so long ago.

    • Anonymous says:

      What an ignorant comment. Rather their ancestors would be delighted to and did worship the God who gave them hope when they were in bondage (so eloquently memorialised in negro spirituals) and the God of those who urged and finally won their emancipation. 

      • Anonymous says:

        Not ignorant at all. Christianity didn’t give them hope while enslaved. If was forced upon them like it has been forced on  all indigenous people all over the world by crusaders and missionaries looking for  wealth and power.


        ~During the early eighteenth century Anglican missionaries attempting to bring Christianity to slaves in the Southern colonies often found themselves butting up against not only uncooperative masters, but also resistant slaves. An unquestionable obstacle to the acceptance of Christianity among slaves was their desire to continue to adhere as much as possible to the religious beliefs and rituals of their African ancestors. Missionaries working in the South were especially displeased with slave retention of African practices such as polygamy and what they called idolatrous dancing. In fact, even blacks who embraced Christianity in America did not completely abandon Old World religion. Instead, they engaged in syncretism, blending Christian influences with traditional African rites and beliefs.Symbols and objects, such as crosses, were conflated with charms carried by Africans to ward off evil spirits. Christ was interpreted as a healer similar to the priests of Africa. In the New World, fusions of African spirituality and Christianity led to distinct new practices among slave populations, including voodoo or vodun in Haiti and Spanish Louisiana. Although African religious influences were also important among Northern blacks, exposure to Old World religions was more intense in the South, where the density of the black population was greater.~


        • Anonymous says:

          The negro spirituals speak for themselves. Their words are obviously heartfelt and have no hint of coercion.


          Deep river, my home is over Jordan
          Deep river,
          Lord, I want to cross over into campground
          Lord, I want to cross over into campground
          Lord, I want to cross over into campground
          Lord, I want to cross over into campground

          Oh, chillun
          Oh, don’t you want to go, to that gospel feast
          That promised land, that land where all is
          Walk into heaven, and take a seat
          And cast my crown at Jesus feet

          Lord, I want to cross over into campground
          Lord, I want to cross over into campground
          Lord, I want to cross over into campground
          Lord, I want to cross over into campground


          What is undeniable is that Christians (real ones) were at the forefront of the battle against slavery. 

          Your sort of thinking spawned the Black Muslim movement in the U.S. saying it was the real religion of Africa. The irony is that many of the original slave traders were men who claimed Islam as their religion and Mohammed himself was a slave owner.  

          • Anonymous says:

            The term "real ones" is used like a get-out-of-jail-free card, it seems.

            • Anonymous says:

              It is obviously unfair to blame Christianity for the behaviour of people who are not following the precepts and principles of Christianity.  

          • Just Commentin' says:

            Interesting. However you fail to entertain one alternative possibility that historians have validated in respect to some of the slaves' songs: many slave spirituals contained a veiled "coded" message that related a escape plan and route. The songs occasionally caught on and spread, their original intent long since lost.

            Swimming across a river and into a certain camp on the other side at the appointed time could certainly be one such message and would be quite willingly sung by the slaves to spread the "word".

            In many areas and points in time, Christianity was indeed spread by the sword and under coercion and duress, under threat of torture, deprivation and death. This is absolute and indisputable historical fact and no amount of circumlocution or denial will alter this fact.

            Negro spirituals do not necessarily "speak for themselves", there may be more to the issue than meets the ears. The behaviour of slaves who embraced their master's faith under duress, but finally internalised its trappings and followed the customs of their captors willingly is attributable to a well-known psychological phenomenon prevalent among people being held against their will: it is a manifestation of the "Stockholm Syndrome".

            You have a lot to learn.

            PS: I am not trying to spawn any "movement", except perhaps a movement toward logic,reason, and truth. It is virtually certain that some of my ancestors were slaves – that is their problem not mine. Slavery was an unspeakable horror but I have no chip on my shoulder for what happened ages ago; however I do intensely dislike ignorance, bigotry, and cluelessness operating under the guise of enlightenment and knowledge.

            • Anonymous says:

              "however I do intensely dislike ignorance, bigotry, and cluelessness operating under the guise of enlightenment and knowledge".

              LOL. Actually you seem to like it very much. Your posts are full of it.  

            • Anonymous says:

              You seem confused. Which is it – the slaves were only cunningly pretending to be Christians and using the Christian symbolism for ulterior purposes, or the slaves adapted Christianity to their native tribal religions which bore no resemblance to their masters' practise of Christianity, or theslaves were victims of "Stockholm Syndrome" and sincerely adopted the religion of their masters? The only thing these have in common is evidence of your malice against Christianity. No respectable psychologist would ever offer "Stockholm Syndrome" as an explanation.   

              • Just Commentin' says:

                Which was it? A bit of all three and then some. You seem to be the confused one: Why would you make this a choice of exclusives? Yours is an appallingly illogical an untenably limited and leading question. Moreover, you intermingle and confuse being "sincere" regarding self determination with a choice made under duress. A degree of "sincerity" of the belief of a person who formed the belief under duress may be manifest, however, in regard to the formation of a slave's belief, the conditions under which the belief was formed might be quite devoid of free will. Is a belief formed under such duress "sincere"? Under such conditions the perceived "sincerety" is often a self-deception, a trick of the mind evoked by the drive towards self preservation.  

                Have you ever bothered to read first-hand accounts regarding the lives of slaves to get an insight into the matter? What about historical records or in-depth studies of slavery? Read any? Perhaps Kenneth Stampp's classic, "The Peculiar Institution"? Or Stanley Elkins’s, "Slavery: A Problem in American Institutional and Intellectual Life"? Or, "The Slave Community: Plantation Life in the Antebellum South" by Blassingame?   Maybe "Slavery and Emancipation" compiled by Halpern and Dal Lago? Very obviously not.

                Have you read any historical works dealing with the history and evolution of Christianity in the USA?  Apparently not.

                There is a overwhelming wealth of biographical and historical material to support the fact that many slaves only pretended to conform; many tried to escape even though they outwardly conformed. Some did internalise and apparently conformed. Curiously, many slaves adapted to and conformed to their captors customs (and religion) and apparently willingly submitted to the trappings of slavery – even to the point that a surprising number of slaves were absolutely resistant to and feared the emancipation movement and resisted those who tried to free them: a clear manifestation of what is commonly called Stockholm Syndrome, which is evident to some degree in virtually all relationships characterised by widely unequal power between parties and the captive under extreme duress. Do you have a viable hypothesis as to why slaves  – even those who were treated harshly – bonded with their cruel masters and resisted freedom? I do not think you have one, but I am willing to hear it if you do.

                The fact that slaves adapted their tribal worship customs to their "Christian" meetings is such common knowledge among those with even rudimentary familiarity regarding  American slavery and Christianity that I should be quite surprised that one so enlightened as you would be unaware of this –  but considering the tenor of and dearth of facts in your comments, I am not really surprised at all

                It is not a point of debate that virtually all slaves were under duress and that their relationship with their masters was under extraordinary and abnormal conditions.

                Contrary to your opinion, I have no malice against Christianity and I am not anti-Christian; I do, however, have a deep disdain and extreme loathing for ignorance and spiritual sloth in those who profess to serve God: if you interpret this as malice so be it.

                To conclude this discourse: Would you like a book list so that you might read and learn? Or are you a happy clam delighted to exist in your shell of cluelessness?


        • Just Commentin' says:


          And it probably will blow the minds of the adherants of the charismatic Pentecostal faiths to learn that their cherished "speaking in tongues" and all the agitated moaning and groaning, shouting, hand-clapping, jumping up and down, foot stomping – and especially the absurd practice of falling down backward and "dying in the spirit" when the preacha thumps you on the head – have more in common with carry-over African tribal "voodoo" practices of converted southern U.S. slaves than in any other traditional Christian origins. It is no coincidence that the modern day "charismatic" style of Christian worship spread from the rural areas of the southern United States.

          Some plantation owners tried to stamp out their slaves' Christian "trance meetings" because after a night of practicing their ecstatic "tribal" brand of Christianity, the slaves were too pooped to put in a good day in the fields.

          • Anonymous says:

            You don't appear to be familiar with the Bible and in particular the NT. True biblical worship is an ecstatic experience. Please, no more of the ignorant chatter. 

            • Just Commentin' says:

              "True biblical worship is an ecstatic experience." Oh, so you were there to know this for sure?  Since you know your Bible so well, tell me, where in the Bible does it say this? 

              I am very familiar with the Bible, I have a collection of them and a nice library of book about the Bible. Where you and I differ is that in regard to an engagement of intellects I try to avoid coming to battle with an empty weapon. If you care to debate the Bible with me thinking I am ignorant of Scripture, you are in for a long, painful and embarassing education.

              Modern day "charismatic" yabbering, wailing, moaning, writhing and falling down backward as "dead", fake "healings", and snake handling are the trappings of hysteria rather than the expressions of a worshipful heart. Nowhere in the Bible will you find worship of God being portrayed as an experience in which the devotee loses intelligent awareness, babbles incomprehensible jibberish, and falls on his butt after getting whapped on the noggin by the preacher.

              That the modern day focus on this hysteric mode of worship has its roots among the "trance meetings" of African slaves in the Southern U.S. is a fact. If you debate this being true then it is not I who is uttering ignorant chatter.

              Oh my…I feel…



              …ubbah balabbah!

              …habbaba kah'hah'amah alumah kenetam jarsha! Ka agbah hamababah f'ahhmah yah'shintobah!! Caramba! Mamacita papacito hasta la byebye…

              Sorry. I did not mean to call you a "hamababah f'ahhmah yah'shintobah, something just came over me.  Amen! Hal-ley-lu-yah! Could somebody give me an interpretation?

              • Anonymous says:

                Your post is hysterical. Manifestations of the Holy Spirit in humans are found throughout the scripture.  When he was anointed King of Israel Saul met a company of prophets and joined in their ecstatic worship. When David and the Israelites dance, sing and play instruments as the ark of the covenant comes into Jerusalem. In fact David is described as whirling and leaping in a  linen ephod so much so that his wife rebuked him as having disgraceful conduct for a king. His response? That he would be even more undignified in the future. The OT is full of shouting, singing, dancing, clapping, lifting up hands and making music with timbrels, harps etc. in praise and worship. It is plainly obvious in the Psalms.

                Tongue speaking, including singing in tongues, is obviously found in NT worship.  (see 1 Cor 14 e.g.) and required interpretation if done publicly. Peter is taken up in a trance. John the relvelator and Paul were taken up in the Spirit. There are visions etc. On the Day of Pentecost observers confused being filled with the Spirit with being drunk. The Holy Spirit may express himself in new and different ways.   

                The only painful thing is for me to endure more ignorant nonsense from you so this will be my last post.   

                • Mocker says:

                  Off you go then. Just try not to read any books out there, as education interferes with mindless belief in religion like you appear to have.

      • Just Commentin' says:

        So…where was this God of Whom you speak when these poor souls were being kidnapped in Africa by the slavers?  Seems to moi that it would have been more efficient for God to nip it in the bud then, before things got out of hand. Why wait for emancipation?

        You know, it also seems to me that, delighted as you think the slaves were to worship dey massa's "white man's" God and sing "Swing Low, Sweet Chariot" all day while they toiled in the cotton fields, methinks they would have been a hell of a lot more delighted not to have been snatched from their homeland and put into bondage in the firstplace.

        • Anonymous says:

          He was exactly where He is now – in Heaven looking down in the same way as He was with Joseph when he was taken into slavery in Egypt. God had an ultimate purpose in allowing it to happen.

          • Just Commentin' says:

            So, "God had an ultimate purpose in allowing it to happen."


            And that "purpose" is??? Doyou have even the foggiest idea?

            Have you ever even bothered to ask Him why He allowed slavery and the accompanying atrocities to happen and what His purpose was in allowing it?

            Hmmm…??? So, "exactly" speaking, your "God" is "in Heaven looking down in the same way as He was with Joseph when he was taken into slavery in Egypt"?? Oh…really??

            Your "god" is just up "there", huh? He's kinda looking from wayyy afar at things "down here" on Earth. Sorta like we sit during Happy Hour and watch Man United play football, eh? He is not really active down on the field. Gee…You don't have a very impressive god at all. Which is why you probably have a very hard time convincing people to follow your god.

            Most preachers roun' yah will suggest that you might want to consider serving a better and more active and effective God: The Jehovah God of the Bible! He is an omnipresent and omnipotent spirit who occupies all points in the physical universe and all points in time as an instantaneous present, and Who indwells and is continually pro-active and interacting with His people and His creation. He does not just sit up in the sky munching on popcorn looking down from a high holy easy chair.

            • Anonymous says:

              Yahweh or Jehovah is precisely the God we serve. Note that he also allowed bad things to happen to the Hebrews in the OT which is exactly why I quoted Joseph. You do understand that Joseph worshipped Yahweh, don't you? You do understand that Jews were in slavery in Egypt, right? Please don't comment unless you have some semblance of understanding of the subject matter. You only reveal your ignorance.

              Were it not for slavery many Africans may not have been Christians.

              BTW my job is not to convince you of anything. I am simply to bear witness. The Holy Spirit convicts. The rest is up to you. I am not begging you to believe.  

              • Just Commentin' says:

                Ignorance? You base your "understanding" on a mystical collection of writings derived from traditional oral stories handed down through the ages by word of mouth until they were finally recorded by the "prophets" and yet you speak down to me?  You are joking, right?

                So Yahweh is "precisely" the God you serve?  (Or "Jehovah" – which is it, anyway?) Oh? Really now??? His name is "Yahweh"? You pretty sure of that, huh?  How do you know this?  Actually you do not know! Out of your ignorance of the derivation of the translation of God's name you merely parrot a made-up name. The vowels were not in the original manuscripts and were guessed at and supplied by translators. The Tetragrammaton  – "YHWH" – is a transliteration of Hebrew into our modern alphabet. As Hebrew has no W sound, to correct for the "vav" phonetic expression, the more accurate rendering is "YHVH"  The name could be Yuhwah or Yehwah or Yehvah. The fact is that no one knows for sure "precisely" what God's name is. Except for you, of course. The very name you call your God is quite questionable and yet you imply that I am ignorant of the subject matter? ("Professing themselves wise…") But I digress…

                No, I do not "understand" that Joseph worshipped Yahweh, I understand that the "Bible" story claims that he did. I certainly do not "understand" that Jews were in slavery in Egypt; again, this is a story from the Bible – and one not supported by reliable, well-accepted historical and archeological analyses.

                Exodus 12"37-38 records about "…about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children" departing Egypt. Including their families and that they were prolific breeders (one of the reasons the Egyptians feared them), and account for non-Jews who joined them, the departing population would have been huge – by some estimates over 2 million people.

                Taking into account the lame and the infirm and the elderly and young children, the departing throng's progress would have been such that either: they would have been much too slow to outrun the Egyptians, or, many would be left behind. This is just one of the problems with the story.

                A hoard of Jewish slaves live in Egypt for almost half a century and grows to the size of the population of a large modern metropolitan city, then over two million people depart suddenly and yet one of the most meticulous and voluminous records keepers of the ancient world, Egypt, somehow omits this event from their recorded history. Really?? The native population of Egyptians is estimated to have been about 3 million at the time, so the lack of historical attention given the exodus story by Egyptian historians is astounding, to say the least. Two fifths of the population and a significant portion of the work force suddenly flees and no one writes about it except for Moses? Unbelievable! That is all I can say. Or maybe the Egyptians were "ignorant" too, eh? Or maybe they needed CNS back then to get the story out!

                Millions wandered about the land and yet the hoard left behind nary an archeological trace and no records?

                Even if "Manna" accounts for their nourishment,  foodwas not the only logistical hurdle; a water source for 2 million people would have to be considerable. Any such source of water in such a dry and arid climate would have probably been a source of much attention, regardless of whether it was a natural source or it came from Moses striking a rock with his staff. Yet no ancient civilisation records anyone having witnessed this enormous mass of people wandering about, much less them creating vast sources of fresh water out of rocks.

                History as we perceive it is in a state of continual flux; however, the data set of  fundamentalist literalist believers in the "Bible" essentially ends about 1,800 or so years ago. Moreover, the final adoption of the current "Bible" is a relatively recent event in the history of the Judeo-Christian faiths. Those who decreed that the current canon is the totality of sacred writings did so based on a very limited historical and archeological data set compared to what is available today.

                The "Bible" underwent many revisions additions, deletions, and debate, until the 1500's when a final trimming resulted in the current 66-book Bible accepted by most western Protestant denominations. A  wealth of historical and archeological discoveries, which shed new light on the biblical record, have been made since the original cannon was "officially" proclaimed to be final and perfect, but the early church fathers ensured that the Bible would never be subject to any additional enlightenment, no matter how compelling . Why is it that the canon was set in stone before all the facts were in? Who is to say that God is not trying to get out attention through the historical record today, providing new inspiration and we are just tuning Him out due to the poor, closed-minded judgement of ancient church fathers and the stubbornness of today's religious leaders?

                Many eminent modern Jewish scholars, rabbis and researchers have cast grave doubt on some of the events contained in the Exodus story. Today few serious historians accept the account as told by "Moses" as being totally and literally accurate. Though a great tale and a source of considerable inspiration, it probably did not happen the way you think it did. If you believe it did, that's ok with me.

                Anyway, it is pointless to argue faith with facts. So I guess I humbly accept my "ignorance" when my grasp of the issue is compared to your lofty and scholarly enlightenment – and I will just leave it at that. (So, has the Holy Spirit convicted you yet?)

                • Anonymous says:

                  LOL. You are too funny. One minute you are complaining that the worship of charismatic Christians does not match "traditional" Christianity and when I point out that it is entirely biblical then you attack the Bible. 

                  BTW I know about Tetragrammaton, and the matter actually goes further than that, but it has absolutely no relevance to the issues at hand. Of course being able to say that word, and regurgitating the History Channel, made you feel really clever.

                  You are clearly one angry individual. Something must have happened in your life to make you hate Christianity so much.   

              • Mr Mock says:

                You need to be mocked for this. Bad things happened to the Hebrews, and lots of other people, because bad people did bad things to them. The fact that the Hebrews wrongly believed in that a sky-fairy might help them didn’t change any of that, nor will it change the bad things that are happening now, or that happened to anyone else.
                Forced conversion to a religion a standard tactic when conquering nations. Christians didn’t invent that, but it was a tool of oppression that they used frequently.
                If your job is to bear witness, keep the fables to yourself please, as it may confuse people who haven’t learned to think for themselves.
                To mop up: Judges convict. Sky-fairies don’t exist. I am begging you to educate yourself. The end.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Your assumption that Christians are uneducated simpletons is amusing. Would you say the formerly atheist scholar C.S. Lewis, Professor at Cambridge, who became a Christian was not educated or had not learned to think for himself? Here's what he had to say on the subject:

                  " A young man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. There are traps everywhere — 'Bibles laid open, millions of surprises,' as Herbert says, 'fine nets and stratagems.'God is, if I may say it, very unscrupulous." – Surprised by Joy".

                   Oh and by the way, Christians have freedom of speech too.


                  • Mr Mock says:

                    What would I say? Same things I’d say to any Christian (or other theist): I’d mock him, of course!

                    As an aside, I’m happy to mock but I’ll fight to the end for you to have the right to say the things that I mock – fair is fair.

          • Mocker says:

            If there were a sky fairy directing all of this, its purpose would be evil, since that’s what slavery is.

            Never accept “god works in mysterious ways” as an excuse for evil. Evil is what people do to people, and too often they dip into religion to justify it. Open your mind and reject it all. Reality isn’t as scary as you might think.

            • Anonymous says:

              You need to become more proficient at reading comprehension. There is a difference between "allowing to happen" and "directing all of this". God's ultimate sovereignty is shown by the fact that he use even evil for good.       

              • Mocker says:

                That’s so wrong it’s funny! What you are saying is that there is an omnipotent sky-fairy who could organize the universe so that there didn’t have to be pain and suffering, but it can’t be bothered to do it. All-knowing all-powerful all-loving but can’t be arsed to get off his butt to stop evil, and isn’t smart enough to make a universe containing free will that doesn’t include torture and slavery. Using evil for good… I bet you think of burning people alive for their own good too, don’t you? Hypocrite!

                My reading comprehension is just fine – you need to work on basic comprehension friend.

    • Anonymous says:

      How do you silly people make this the white God when the Bible comes out of the Middle East area. The people from this area are not what one would define as white they are coloured. Even Jesus was a man the could not be defined as white. He came as the colour of the people of the region. Can you imagine how effective it would be for a White Jesus to preach to coloured people.

      Again we have too many children making comments on here. If you are not a child then you sure act as such.

  16. Scarlet A says:

    Next then we’ll need to translate Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, just to off-set the Big Lie. Failing that, can anyone please translate this Dawkins’ quote: “Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.” We could start with that, or this: “I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.”

    • Anonymous says:

      You do realize that your comment took faith of some kind…?  Not debating your beliefs but they are beliefs and no one believes without faith, belief and faith go hand in hand.

      In fact, that statement is an oxymoron.  Even the acceptance of evidence takes faith, assuming you're perception of the evidence was not influenced by your own biases.  Be upfront and at least attempt to challenge belief for belief, but don't throw your's out the window in an effort to dismantle someone elses.  That's like blowing up your own house to spite your neighbor… 

      Richard Dawkins must be attempting to redefine the word in order to support his own belief, thereby employing faith as he ignores the evidence of faith's actual meaning.  And be careful in your faith in other people's words/ beliefs.  Your faith in Richard Dawkins is evident in your comment.  Both of your understanding of faith is inevident and I wonder what bias affected your perception of the evidence and produced your beliefs?

      Best regards

      • Reality Check says:

        "I wonder what bias affected your perception of the evidence and produced your beliefs?" Probably a bias in favour of overwhelming empirical evidence over fantastical bronze age mythology.  That works for me.

        • Anonymous says:

          No bias, just this…



          1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

          Here's a link to google, in case you don't own a dictionary.  http://www.google.com Start by typing "faith definition"


          … and you assume I've taken a side when I haven't stated it….  Your perception has influenced your response and perhaps you've preceived wrong.  I'm indifferent on this topic, I just wanted to challenge a contradictory statement.


          Have a nice day

    • Anonymous says:

      Quoting from the Holy Book of Dawkins. LOL.

  17. Anonymous says:

    Wow – such ignorant comments about the best-selling book of all time.  I guess it hasnt been read enough…

    PS – The King James Bible celebrates 400 years (see this month's National Geographic cover)

    It the patois bible helps Jam to come to God.. all the better!

    However, for those who do not beleive, the Bible will always seem as foolishness!

    • Anonymous says:

      It's not surprising that it's the best-selling book of all time.  Religion is big business.


      • Reality Check says:

        It is a shame about the over hyped ending in Revelations as it really scuppered any marketing opportunities for a sequel.

        • Anonymous says:

          No worries, mate.  They'll just do a New Testament II that disavows all that has gone before.  Someone will have to be sacrificed first, naturally.

        • Anonymous says:

          i don't think you will have to worry about a sequel!

          • Mocker says:

            The Holy Qur’an was the sequel, and I have to say the acting was rather a lot better!

            • Anonymous says:

              The Qu'ran is the Qu'ran and the Bible is the Bible. Different God.

        • Anonymous says:

          When the bible was put together one of the main points was to conclude the bible with the book of revelations. That book places a full stop on the bible it means it cannot be added to or taken away. it was not the last written nor the last that occured in history but serves as a full stop to the holy bible.

  18. Anonymous says:


  19. Kosher Nostra says:

    I really don't see this as a problem.  The KJV was translated under suspicious circumstances itself-I'm told.  Reads a little different than the Aramaic old Hebrew and Greek-I'm told.  

    • Anonymous says:

      First, the issue obviously has nothing to do with the KJV since there are many modern English translations from which to choose including the New International Version, the New American Standard Version, the English Standard Version and the Jerusalem Bube and many others.

      Second, there was nothing "suspicious" about the circumstances of the translation of the KJV. The translation was commissioned King James 1 of England and conducted by some 54 scholars including the top scholars at Oxford, Cambridge at Westminster. Its purpose was to have one authorised version given the multiplicity of translations around.  Fifteen generalrules were advanced for the guidance of the translators:

      1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit.

      2. The names of the Prophets, and the Holy Writers, with the other Names of the Text, to be retained, as nigh as may be, accordingly as they were vulgarly used. 

      3. The Old Ecclesiastical Words to be kept, viz. the Word Church not to be translated Congregation &c. 

      4. When a Word hath divers Significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most of the Ancient Fathers, being agreeable to the Propriety of the Place, and the Analogy of the Faith. 

      5. The Division of the Chapters to be altered, either not at all, or as little as may be, if Necessity so require. 

      6. No Marginal Notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek Words, which cannot without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the Text. 

      7. Such Quotations of Places to be marginally set down as shall serve for the fit Reference of one Scripture to another. 

      8. Every particular Man of each Company, to take the same Chapter or Chapters, and having translated or amended them severally by himself, where he thinketh good, all to meet together, confer what they have done, and agree for their Parts what shall stand. 

      9. As any one Company hath dispatched any one Book in this Manner they shall send it to the rest, to be considered of seriously and judiciously, for His Majesty is very careful in this Point. 

      10. If any Company, upon the Review of the Book so sent, doubt or differ upon any Place, to send them Word thereof; note the Place, and withal send the Reasons, to which if they consent not, the Difference to be compounded at the general Meeting, which is to be of the chief Persons of each Company, at the end of the Work. 

      11. When any Place of special Obscurity is doubted of, Letters to be directed by Authority, to send to any Learned Man in the Land, for his Judgement of such a Place. 

      12. Letters to be sent from every Bishop to the rest of his Clergy, admonishing them of this Translation in hand; and to move and charge as many skilful in the Tongues; and having taken pains in that kind, to send his particular Observations to the Company, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford. 

      13. The Directors in each Company, to be the Deans of Westminster, and Chester for that Place; and the King's Professors in the Hebrew or Greek in either University. 

      14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the Text than the Bishops Bible: Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's, Geneva. 

      15. Besides the said Directors before mentioned, three or four of the most Ancient and Grave Divines, in either of the Universities, not employed in Translating, to be assigned by the vice-Chancellor, upon Conference with the rest of the Heads, to be Overseers of the Translations as well Hebrew as Greek, for the better observation of the 4th Rule above specified. 

  20. Yo Mama says:

    Oh vey. Do these people really need easier access to stories about imaginary beings and magic tricks? Why not work on getting some science books in Jamaican patois?

  21. Atheist says:

    It is still old school fantasy sci-fi in any language.

    • Anonymous says:

      You are certainly hoping it is!

    • Anonymous says:

      It is what you make of it.  Or I should say it is what you have the ability to make of it.

      • Reality Check says:

        Yes, the ability point is valid, those indoctrinated into believing religious dogma while small children without choice have a much more limited ability to reject the utter fantasy in adult life.

        • Anonymous says:

          We are subject to influences all the time, some good and some bad. There is no neutral ground. Christianity is a good influence.  

        • Anonymous says:

          Reality Check your point is valid but could you also say that about anything. I mean the same child also has a limited ability to choose things that are not religous in nature. If the childs parents were to make that child a drug user and be involved in porn what would you say. Your word fantasy has already indicated to me and others that your main point is too attack religion. By doing it this way you ignore the vaules that religion brings to individuals.

      • Anonymous says:

        In the context of this discussion about languages, and God's having created them , I have always wondered what others "make" of the story of the tower of Babel.   


        From WIkipedia:  "They are one people and have one language, and nothing will be withholden from them which they purpose to do." So God said, "Come, let us go down and confound their speech."


        God sees his creatures striving to make something beautiful, something profound.  He sees them learning, creating and solving problems.

        The edifice they hope to build will reach "the heavens", bringing them (quite literally) closer to him.  He interprets this as pride.

        They are working in cooperation, and he interprets this as a threat.


        He sees them learning, creating and succeeding where they try, and interprets these as  negative things.


        He gives them free will, but when they use it to build a city for themselves rather than obeying his command to spread out and "populate the earth", he punishes them, and thwarts their plans.  Are they really free, if god intervenes to thwart them when they make decisions for themselves?


        I don't understand this story at all.