Don't mess with the word of G-d
by Mischa Gelman
(published 10/18/2000)

    Some folks have lately gotten into the habit of criticizing the Bible,
Torah or Koran by saying they are outdated and need to be reconfigured for
modern times, a claim that has been repeated throughout history. This
claim is not only internally inconsistent, but is often based on faulty
interpretations and can lead to great dangers.
    First off, let's tackle the illogic of the revisionists, many of whom
claim to be practicing Jews, Christians and Muslims. They claim that these
are the central teachings of their faith - and then revise them to fit
their "modern" views. The problem with trying to maintain both views is
that by modernizing the scriptures, they proclaim that they know what G-d
wants better than G-d did. The rules in the central books of the Abrahamic
faiths do not say "these are only valid until an unspecified date in the
future, at which my followes may overrule them." Rather they're designed
to be eternal codes on how to live. If we follow the lenient theologists,
we're placing the transient and faddish ahead of the everlasting values.
     What's the danger in this, you may ask? Well, if the teachings can be
manipulated by the shysters and revisionists of a given age, then all
manner of abominations may be justified in the name of the very religion
which condemns those things. The Bible is very clear that "G-d hath made
of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth" 
(Acts 17:26)  and the Torah clearly indicates that all humanity is
descended from the same ancestors. The message clearly is, as Rev. Jim
Wallis points out, that "There is no such thing as 'race' in the eyes of
G-d." When the racist revisionists came along though, they cast such
notions aside as outdated and claimed G-d favored their racist approach. I
did a paper two years ago on the social gospel movement and race - it
turned out that those who based their views off the Bible were most likely
to deny racial differences. Those who favored more "modern" revisionists
approaches were more likely to approve of racism. If people had more
accurately followed the teachings of the holy books, without rewriting
them to fit the sensibilities of their age, then racism would not have
become the scourge it was, leading to lynchings, slavery, apartheid,
segregation and the like.
     We see a similar case when it comes to immigration. Those who rely
more upon the Bible are more likely to open their arms to immigrants. The
Torah and Bible compel us to "love the stranger...for you were strangers
yourself in the land of Egypt" (Deut. 10:18-19) and orders us "You shall
not oppress an alien...since you were once aliens yourselves." (Exodus
23:9) The Catholic Church, holding to strict adherence to the scriptures,
has advocated open borders and immigration for the past 55 years as a
result. Meanwhile, immigration opponents like Peter Brimelow fall back on
rants about a "shifting ethnic balance," relying on decidedly unbiblical
messages for their agenda. Again, those who hold tight to tradition are
those who hold the right stance, one of love and acceptance. The biblical
order to "love thy neighbor" certainly is more appealing than the
nonbiblical "G-d helps those who help themselves."
   What about passages that defend oppression? Simple - these are often
misread. My colleague Mike Mazza, in his Dr. Laura column, tortures the
Bible to confirm his suspicions that it allows for hatred. Mazza writes
that Deuteronomy 23:1 allows Orthodox Jews to ostracize a man who lost a
testicle due to cancer or an accident. In reality, the Torah (in 23:2
 not 23:1 - the passage is 23:1 only in the Christian Bible Orthodox Jews
don't follow obviously) merely states that a man "with crushed testacles
or a cut member" is only allowed to marry a proselyte or freed slave.
Nothing at all about ostracization, yet alone forbidding marriage. Anyone
who bothers to read the actual text and commentary would realize this.
Similarly, other false interpretations are common among bible-bashers on
the 'net. A satirical letter to "Dr. Laura" asks "When I burn a bull on
the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord (Leviticus 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. 
They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?"
This ignores the clear biblical teaching that sacrifices are only allowed
when there is a High Temple in Jerusalem. The letter states "I have a
neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2
clearly states he should be put to death." As I explained in an earlier
column, the death penalty only applies when we have the Sanhedrin, the
Court of 70, only if the person is warned briefly before the crime occurs,
and the person acknowledges the warning, and is witnessed by two unrelated
individuals. One death penalty every seven years (or 70 according to other
rabbis) was seen as tyrannical. Vigilanteism is certainly not ordered.
Such misinterpretations are a common tool, of those who criticize the
Bible and Torah, claiming it irrelevent in today's world, without changes
made. In fact, the more one listens to the critics, the more one realizes
they have not studied the topic matter in any detail. It is a shame that
such uninformed opinions continue, to oppose the loving teachings of G-d.
   G.K. Chesterton wrote "We do not really want a religion that is right
where we are right. What we want is a religion that is right where we are
wrong." The revisionists want a religion that matches their views, and
seeks to revise that religion, presuming they know what's right. Instead
of conforming to the just teachings, they turn those teachings on their
heads to match their unbiblical ideas.

  Mischa Gelman does not follow all of G-d's rules, but at least he
doesn't seek to rewrite them.