The Theology of “For the Bible tells me so”

“For the Bible Tells Me So” is a documentary that attempts, among other things, to prove that the Bible says it is ok to be gay. Is that the case? Is homosexuality divinely ordained? Read on….

At 20:20, Reverend Steven Kingle, “If you read the Bible at a face value level, it leaves out some very important things. The first one is just a few verses before that; that Moses teaches it is an abomination to eat shrimp… it is an abomination to eat a rabbit.

Call it what you want. It was not a capitol offense to eat a rabbit. However, they even mentioned in the movie that homosexuality and certain other sexual abominations were capitol crimes.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu… “The Bible was written in the idiom of the time… We don’t take it as literally so…”

Et Tú Tutu? Bible scholars have poured their hearts into accurately translating the Bible. They know that their very souls are on the line… This was especially in the forefront of people’s minds the 1600s. Any Bible student knows that it has been remarkably well preserved, and the King James and most modern translations, such as the NIV are meticulously translated. There is no mystery about Biblical idioms if you study. Secondly… There is nothing idiomatic about the statement that someone should be put to death! It is obvious, either Tutu doesn’t know what an idiom is (I find this unlikely) or he is deceived.

At 21:36, Reverend Dr. Laurence C. Keene: When the word “abomination” is used in the Bible it is always used to address a ritual wrong. It never is used to refer to something innately immoral… Eating pork was never “innately” wrong… (The word “always” was emphasized in his speech. It was not added by me.)

This guy is truly scary. He does not know Hebrew and is misleading his followers – and anybody else watching this video: I cannot trust another word he says.

Strong’s H8441 – tow`ebah: a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable

1. in ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages)
2. in ethical sense (of wickedness etc.)

At 22:12 Reverend Susan Sparks That particular section about a man not lying with a man was about procreation…

1. Where did she come up with that? Where is her evidence?
2. God did not say “why”. Does knowing the reason why not to kill make murder any less of an offense? God rarely explains Himself – He said not to. God also talked about not having sex with close family members and animals. He did not explain why.
   How ridiculous does this sound? “Oh, well. I’m not in the mood to procreate, the planet is overpopulated, anyhow. So I’ll just have sex with that animal over there – or maybe my sister…”

At 21:36, Reverend Dr. Laurence C. Keene: Onan spilled his seed on the ground. It was an abomination.

Commentators are virtually unanimous: God struck Onan down not for the act of coitus interruptus. Onan spilled his seed on the ground to keep from getting Tamar pregnant because any child born to her would have belonged to his late brother…

At 23:12 They show a clip from an episode of TV’s West Wing where actor Martin Sheen proposes a scenario: When someone works on the Sabbath – who should put him to death?

The Sabbath being a capital offense was superceded by Jesus when He said that the Sabbath was made for the man, not man for the Sabbath. (Mark 2:27) However, homosexuality was condemned in both the Old and New Testaments. Homosexuals (and many others) will not be admitted into the Kingdom of Heaven. (See 1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

For insight on this movie from the perspective of the ex-gay, see the “For the Bible tells me so” Movie Review by Thomas Coy
 

• By Daniel McCool, February 12, 2012 @ 10:34 pm

  As a teenager doing research on this topic, and who has just watched the movie, I disagree with you. The first time i read this article I was with you, and agreed with you. But after I read it a second time I realized you are wrong. You do not address what these people are really saying. You, like most conservatives, would admit you wrong, and then turn to personal insults to try to avoid admitting your wrong. In Leviticus 11:1-6 it says you shall not eat an animal that doesn’t have a split hoof but eats cud. Rabbits do not have split hooves and eats cud. I agree with you that it is not capital offense but then again the documentary never said it was, but you cannot deny that the bible says you cannot eat shrimp (Leviticus 11:9-12). I also believe in what Archbishop (which is a very high title) Tutu say. Even though man tried his best to preserve the bible, man is not perfect, and it would be almost impossible not to have altered the text over thousands of years. I do not a prove of your personal attack on Reverend Keene, and I trust him more than someone I found on the internet. As for misleading his followers, what is he doing differently than what you are doing with this blog? As for him not knowing Hebrew, I do not know, but I also don’t know how you would know.

• By A.L. Howard, February 12, 2012 @ 11:26 pm

  Thanks for your feedback, Daniel.
  Where did I insult anybody?
  Lumping me together with “most conservatives” is unfair and further, most people I know are conservative and do not insult people if they are told they are wrong.
  Foods were all made clean in the New Testament. Both by Jesus Himself and by the vision Peter had in Acts.
  I agree Archbishop is a very high title, but some people with very high titles have been wrong. To say the Bible was written in the idiom of the time is not a scholarly statement. Yes, there are idioms in the Bible, and there are parables and there is symbolism, but most of it is to be taken at face value. And someone with such a high title should be able to discern the different literary styles.
  The Bible is amazingly well preserved. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls astonished everyone at how well our text has been preserved over the centuries. You are student, look up “textual criticism”. You will be amazed.
  Personal attack on Reverend Keene? He is wrong — dead wrong. He’s scary because people look up to him as an authority. What’s personal about that? While you are studying, look up the science of logic – especially how to deal with the term, “always”.
  Sorry if I came across as being blunt, but I would not be doing anybody a favor by trying to beat around the bush. I do appreciate you taking the time to reply. And I really think you would be amazed by textual criticism and logic.

Other Links to this Post