The Common English Bible: A Roundup of Posts and Some Critical Notes

So far, it can’t be said that the reviews are positive. Doug Chaplin (seconded in many instances by Stephen Carlson) notes a number of infelicities. T. C. Robinson notes that “conservative evangelicals are not going to like it too much. Why? Certain terms are ‘sacred.’” I would go further. Anyone at all attached to the vocabulary of the Christian faith as currently used in English-language communities of faith is not going to like it in key passages. Insofar as this translation is adopted by “mainstream Christians” (a pompous reference to Christians in Protestant denominations like the one I serve in, the United Methodist Church - *now omitted* - see comments below), it will ghettoize them from apparently non-mainstream Christians like Roman Catholics, the Orthodox, and Pentecostals who, last time I checked, still use words like “repent,” “blasphemy,” and “Son of Man.”

CEB, to judge from the Gospel of Matthew sampler, is going to contain too many neologisms. “Human One” for the traditional “Son of Man” has been noted as jarring or the like by Esteban Vazquez and a number of other commentators (go here; though Wayne Leman seems to like it). If it is the case – and I think it is - that phrases like “the abomination of desolation” and “the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven” count as technical terms or language in code, one cannot easily dispense with them any more than one can dispense with “Christ” and “John the Baptist,” both of which CEB mercifully keeps.

CEB 24:15 the disgusting and destructive thing for the traditional “abomination of desolation” is in fact too colloquial. CEB 24:30 the Human One coming in the heavenly clouds has no chance of “working” unless the occurrences of “Son of Man” wherever found in Daniel are rendered concordantly – which I don’t think is possible.

CEB seems destined to repeat NRSV’s lamentable tendency to translate phrases one way in the text Jesus is quoting, and a different way, but without justification, when Jesus quotes it (Daniel 7:13 a human being coming with the clouds of heaven = Matthew 24:30 the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven; Daniel 9:27 an abomination that desolates = Matthew 24:15 the desolating sacrilege).

More pedestrian CEB neologisms include phrases like “children of snakes.” This is an example of 5^th grade level explanatory Biblish. Google “children of snakes” if you don’t believe me. A snake’s young are not normally called “children” in English. In any case, a reference to underage snakes is not the point of the Greek phrase. Furthermore, CEB Matthew 23:33 You snakes! You children of snakes! is not just odd; it’s weak compared to the traditional “You serpents, you brood of vipers!” “You serpents, you brood of vipers!” or very strong language like it, is necessary in Matthew 23:33, unless the desire is to have a kinder, gentler Jesus, regardless of how the gospel of Matthew presents him.  

Another example: CEB Matt 12:27: if I throw out demons by Beelzebul, then by whom do your people throw out demons? But do people throw out demons in English? This, it seems to me, is another neologism. In English, we cast out demons, or drive them out.

To be sure, CEB avoids traditional language with the result that certain passages come alive whereas they could otherwise sound trite. For example, John the Baptist does not say, “Repent,” but “Change your hearts and lives” (Matt 3:2). The advantage of CEB's translation is that it makes sense on the fly. But it will be impossible to translate the Old Testament background texts which form the basis of John’s appeal in concordant fashion. In the process, CEB will obscure the coherence of the biblical narrative. This is a common defect of Bible versions on the “free” side of the translation continuum.

Similarly, it is not “an evil and adulterous generation” that asks for a sign, but an evil and faithless generation in CEB (Matt 12:39). That destroys the connection with the Old Testament subtext (Hosea; Ezekiel; and so on). At the very least, it takes the sexual innuendo out of it, what you do, I guess, when teaching the faith to people who on other days of the week watch “Desperate Housewives.”

Blasphemy against the Spirit” becomes insulting the Spirit (Matt 12:31). But insulting is too weak. I admit there is a part of me, the teacher in me, not the poet, that wants to get rid of the word blasphemy. The dilemma is this: once you get what the word means – slander of the vilest sort – blasphemy becomes the best of all possible translations. It is however always helpful to explain that Matthew 12:31 means to say that slander of every kind is forgivable, but not slander against the Spirit, which is what people do when they attribute the Spirit’s work to the devil.  

Joel Hoffman questions whether CEB keeps its promise to dumb down the language of the source text where necessary to bring it to a 5^th to 7^th grade level, in the case of magi in Matthew 2:2, 7. Of course, there are those of us who will stay away from CEB like the plague precisely because of that fateful promise, even if, mercifully, CEB has the good sense to retain magi – a technical term if there ever was one, with just the right overtones of magic and the occult in English - where we expect to find it. 

Comments

[Lue-Yee Tsang]

And if we say mages instead of magi? All the fantasy video game players will know what we’re talking about. Simon the Mage. Mages from the East.

Does magi consistently evoke more than ‘the wise men who came to Jesus’, though? I’ve never asked anyone who wasn’t semi-familiar with the Bible.

[JohnFH]

Lue-Yee,

That's interesting. There is something counter-intuitive about eliminating terms whose origin is biblical and which have become firmly ensconced in the language from translations that are supposed to be understandable to the popular imagination.

[Bob MacDonald]

John - thanks for this note. I tried an experiment with the CEB - using Google translate on 3:2 here.

[JohnFH]

Very interesting, Bob.

[T.C. R]

John, thanks for the round up.

CEB is destined to a certain confinement. It doesn't take rocket science to figure that out.

Why? It's messing too much with our "sacred" terms.

"Insulting" for "blasphemy." That's not going to work.

[Esteban Vázquez]

John,

I took Abingdon to task in a post yesterday precisely on account of the very unfortunate language originally used in the new CEB website to market the translation:

http://voxstefani.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/marketing-the-common-english-bible/

I was pleasantly surprised to receive a very positive reply from Paul Franklyn, the CEB Project Director, and I'm glad to to tell you that the text on the website has been updated, and that it much, much better.

Esteban

[JohnFH]

Esteban,

You rock. All references to "mainstream" as opposed to "conservative" Christians have now disappeared.

But your post preserves the offending paragraphs for posterity. That's helpful, because the omitted paragraphs represent the mindset of not a few who are behind the production of CEB. Not all, but still.

It is the story of the NIV all over again, which started out as an anti-RSV enterprise. It was no different in the case of ESV, an anti-TNIV enterprise which, paradoxically, recovers RSV for another generation of readers.

The genesis of KJV was also shaped by politics of the same kind.

At the end of the day, it is imperative to judge Bible translations, not on the basis of the intentions of those who produced them, but on the basis of their intrinsic merits and demerits.

The larger question is the use of the rhetoric of denigration, subtly or crassly framed. When is such rhetoric appropriate? When should it be challenged? The questions, unresolved, loom large in the public square.

[Charles Wiese]

I'm not real keen on the substitution of "happy" for "blessed" especially when you get to Matthew 5:3ff. and get the heading "Happy People." I really don't know what word would fit as a substitute that would bring it to the grade level they are aiming for but "happy" does not convey the meaning of the Greek. Jesus was not preaching a sermon on how to be happy people.

I do appreciate that they included Matt. 7:6 in the paragraph of Matt. 7:1-5. I think many misinterpretations have arisen by treating v. 6 as a separate unit.

[JohnFH]

Hi Charles,

BTW, what a great blog you have. I'm with you all the way in your recent post:

http://lambonthealtar.blogspot.com/2009/11/cyril-lucar-synod-of-jerusalem-clarity.html

I have the same misgivings as you with respect to "happy" versus "blessed." On the other hand, I often preach on the beatitudes as a recipe for happiness - just not happiness as most people think of happiness. The only kind of happiness worth having, according to the Bible, is the kind that flows from joy of the knowledge of salvation.

[Esteban Vázquez]

John,

As you might imagine, I'm delighted that the text was removed -- not because it was partly in response to one of my posts, but because I sincerely hope that the CEB will do well, even though I find its translation of St Matthew's Gospel disappointing. When I first heard of the project, I had hoped for a translation like the TNIV that transcended its well-known Evangelical slant. It is now clear that the CEB is something else entirely, but there still is a place for it, and again, I hope that it will do well for itself.

I don't think the paragraphs quoted in my blog represent the mindset of a significant number of the people behind the CEB, but that of a rather misguided marketing department. As Chuck Grantham noted on my blog, that is sadly a common occurrence.

Also, I can't agree that the roots of the NIV are in an anti-RSV movement. Of course, as Paul Franklyn noted on my blog, it is undeniable that it was marketed as the anti-RSV in some quarters in the '70s, but it must be remembered that a) Howard Long, the layman whose vision was the seed of the NIV, and some very important members of the CBT, belonged to the Christian Reformed Church, a denomination who officially sanctioned the RSV for use in its churches, and in which the RSV was widely used; and b) that the NAE had approached the NCC in the hopes of being able to produce an Evangelical edition of the RSV, a privilege afforded to the Roman Catholics (1966), but denied to the Evangelicals. In a sense, then, it was the NCC's snubbing of Evangelicals, who evidently esteemed the RSV and wanted to use it with some changes, that opened the doors to the production of the NIV.

[JohnFH]

Esteban,

You are very generous toward non-evangelical mainline Protestants. That's sweet of you, but the fact remains that the same anti-evangelical spirit which brought the NCC to deny permission to NAE churches decades ago to produce their own edition of RSV is alive and well among NCC member denominations to this day.

The situation is exacerbated by ongoing battles within mainline Protestant denominations in which predominantly liberal leaderships have long made a name for themselves in the sense of squashing a more conservative-minded evangelical rank-and-file.

If only it were a question of marketing. If only.

As for NIV arising out of evangelical dissatisfaction with RSV, I thought that was common knowledge. See, for example, from a NIV backer, Don Jackson, "The Theology of the NIV," Restoration Quarterly 27 (1984) 208-220; 208. Or how about this famous bon mot of Daniel Wallace, "The conservative reaction to the RSV’s translation of this one word [almah = young woman] gave birth to the NASB, the NIV, and a host of other translations."

But I accept that many other people simply wanted a less stilted, more understandable translation, and were glad to have one, quite apart from the fact that it was produced under the leadership of a Westminster Seminary professor and a committee of theological revisors of a stripe that CRC folk, including those without any strong negative attitudes toward RSV, would also definitely feel comfortable with.

I remain unconvinced that CEB will prove to be a significant player in the increasingly fragmented world of English Bible translations. Like you, I find CEB Matthew disappointing.

That said, I agree with you that NIV has an evangelical slant here and there which is annoying - I speak as an evangelical. The first example that comes to my mind is the translation of paradosis in 2 Thessalonians by "teaching" rather than the usual "tradition." On this one, the ESV translation team showed more maturity. Here's hoping that Mounce, formerly the chair of the ESV NT translation, now a member of the NIV revision team, will argue that a higher degree of concordance in translation is called for in this instance.

[Gary Simmons]

I suppose this will be the least-contributing comment for the discussion but... I personally translate John the Baptist as saying "you viper hatchlings!"

Perhaps for blasphemy one could instead say "utterly profane." Although profane is still out of a seventh-grader's vocabulary, at least it moves away from the current "church word."

[JohnFH]

Creative suggestions, Gary. They might work best in exposition however. Nice blog you have, BTW.

[CD-Host]

John, well I thought I'd let you know this thread comes up 1st in google under "common english bible review". Which is pretty cool, congrads.

Its a year and a half later and not much has changed. The OT is out now and still it lacks a simple answer to the "what is this bible particularly good at". I understand the influence of the NIV in promoting the idea of balance in translation and their theory makes sense and is possible, but they weren't combining it with a deliberate simplification in reading level. Yes I understand how it is slightly different than the CEV, but it sure seems close enough to not be worth the trouble.

As for Estaban's comment I agree with his article. The CEB isn't particularly liberal. It would have been much better if it had been ideologically liberal. We have good quality single translator liberal translations Andy Gaus' Unvarnished I think give a hint of what a genuinely liberal dynamic translation would look like. Nyland's Source or Price Pre-Nicene a view of what a formal one would look like. A good quality committee that put out the bible and a strong liberal associated commentary would have been huge.

A year and a half later I think we are still wondering "what's the point".

[JohnFH]

He is risen from the dead, though he is not Lord.

Welcome back, CD.

As you know, my heart longs for, not a liberal or conservative translation, but a translation that Catholics and non-Catholics, evangelicals and non-evangelicals, liberals and conservatives alike recognize as reliable and accurate.

If English-speaking churches were smart and understood the value of having a common English Bible, that would an RSV revised to adhere to the MT in the OT, reflect classical Christian interpretation in passages like Isa 7:14 (with an honest explanation in a footnote to the effect that the Hebrew is not that specific), with diction and syntax updated as necessary, without however making the text "gender-sensitive" where it isn't.

I notice that NIV 2011 preserved its anti-Catholic and anti-Orthodox slant in 2 Thessalonians 3:6. I find that depressing.

[CD-Host]

Well thank you I'm not sure I'd call myself risen yet. This is likely more of an occasional spectre haunting some old places I traversed.

a translation that Catholics and non-Catholics, evangelicals and non-evangelicals, liberals and conservatives alike recognize as reliable and accurate.

I think the consensus among bible bloggers is that the REB may be the one that comes closest to a universal bible. I've seen hardcore complementarian evangelicals advocate it, you look at the wide range of churches, including the Catholic that stand behind it, and heck I probably fairly represent the left most extreme. On my brighter days that's a possible candidate. Though if memory serves you weren't a big fan.

The CEB may be similarly uncontroversial in the other direction. There seems to be a universal opinion that's it is a so/so dynamic easy to read translation and not particularly interesting.

But in my more pessimistic moments. I don't see how that's possible. Take the debates on Isaiah 7:14, which are the best documented left to right debate. I can't see this as anything other than crystal clear that a translation from the Hebrew should use "young woman" or "girl" or ... with no hint of of whether she's had intercourse or not. My take is the context makes it even more clear. I don't have a problem with the NETS using, virgin but they don't claim to be based on the Hebrew. How would you resolve that?

[JohnFH]

Hi CD,

Many people of all different backgrounds, myself included, think of REB as a translation well worth consulting, with plenty of original and interesting solutions. But REB is rarely if ever adopted for liturgical use. It is too idiosyncratic. For the purposes of a common English Bible, it also departs far too radically from the Tyndale-Geneva-King James translation tradition, still the most influential and representative translation tradition in the English language.

A common English Bible translation readable in churches across the English speaking world would combine a number of features of the RSV CE revisions and the ESV revision of RSV.

Since it would be a Christian Bible, it may very well make sense to incorporate Christian interpretation of key Old Testament passages into the translation. Isa 7:14 is the most celebrated example of such a passage. If so, a footnote explaining the facts would be most welcome.

There is little doubt that the Christian interpretation of Isa 7:14 is a re-application thereof based on the LXX rendering and the understanding that Mary was a virgin and became pregnant through the intervention of the Holy Spirit.

The primary sense of Isa 7:14 is shrouded in obscurity but might reference the birth of a royal heir, which has a tighter connection with its reinterpretation in light of the understanding noted previously than does the re-interpretation of "Out of Egypt I called my son" in the selfsame gospel of Matthew.

[CD-Host]

Hi John --

BTW if you want to move this away from a 2009 thread I'm OK with that. Since we seem not to be discussing the CEB anymore as I think we both agree it is being greeted with a yawn.

From what I understand the REB is used liturgically in England. I don't see the REB as much further away than the TNIV, NLT, HCSB liturgically. I'd agree for a church using the KJV or RSV it might be a step too far.

In general, for liturgical use I don't know that accuracy matters nearly as much as things like flow and sounding good poetically in English. Also transculturation becomes more key, because it is going to be read without study notes. I'm opposed to the "all in one" bible because I see those tradeoffs as irreconcilable. On the other hand accuracy is much less of an issue IMHO when it comes to liturgical bibles. Lets take an example that's outside both of our traditions, The Clear Word. Great Liturgical bible, reads like natural english. Reads Ellen White's interpretations right back into the text.... And I see the KJV in a similar light, excellent poetry reads Church of England interpretations into the text.

I'm not sure how you go back to having a broad liturgical bible and read in a tradition which huge groups of American Christianity reject. For the same reason you would not tolerate to have Ellen White read into your liturgy the SDA will not tolerate having Augustine or Jerome deliberately read in to theirs. It would seem to me that once you are asking for fidelity to the Christian tradition and a belief that the bible is accurate you are asking wide swaths of American Christians to accept the legitimacy of specific Christian traditions. And that gets very dicey since the only way huge groups of American protestants can even maintain the lines they do now is by inconsistent in their theology. We never really finished our discussions from 2 years ago, at least I sorta suspect American Protestantism is on the same road as the Theosophists, the Masons, Thelema... they are just walking down it much more slowly.

This is essentially the argument of the Catholic apologists, the bible cam from the magisterium. A branch cannot win a war against its tree.

The KJV has the virtue of seeming neutral when it was widely adapted as a standard. Similarly with the NIV, Zondervan was not a denomination at a time when that still mattered.

It has happened, at least with the greek originals. The NA27 does have that kind of wide acceptance (UBS">http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2009/08/ubs-process-ecumenicalism-at-its-best.html">UBS process). Though if i were going to use that analogy I think on matters of translation we are essentially in the 18th century where there were completely non systematic disputes with the TR.

__

As for Isaiah 7:14 my read is it is poetical way of saying "get a grip. Within the next 14 years Rezin and Pekah will be toast, nothing to worry about so stop freaking out".

[JohnFH]

Hi CD,

It won't surprise you if I say that I am a true contrarian when it comes to NA. I feel it is absurd to downgrade the pericope of the adulterer in the gospel of John and the long ending of Mark just because we have reason to believe that neither formed a part of the gospels of John and Mark in the first instance.

Big deal. For good reason the Church has included said passages in scripture since forever. The Holy Spirit I would suggest continues to speak through these passages no less than in the past.

I don't know offhand in what churches REB is authorized to be read in the liturgy. It is used for that purpose very infrequently to say the least in the United States. The typical lectern and pew Bibles are well-known; REB is not one of them.

As far as your predictions about American Protestantism are concerned, I think you are overlooking many things. Mainline Protestant churches tend to drift toward Unitarianism over time, but in the process wither away on the one hand, and create in response renewal movements within that pull the denominations back to their roots. In the denomination I serve, that works out this way. An independent evangelical seminary, Asbury, churns out more seminary grads in a given year that go on to be UMC pastors than all of the official seminaries *combined.* That's why the percentage of pastors in mainline denoms who believe in things like the virgin birth is on the rise, not on the decline.

I think your predictions are unlikely.

[CD-Host]

Hi John.

In terms of America if you want good data on what's happening: http://pewforum.org/newassets/images/reports/flux/fullreport.pdf

Pretty much after 2 generations the liberal Christian bleed has stopped. Evangelicals are losing people to liberalism faster than liberalism is losing them to evangelicals. Its also picking up Catholics at a good clip. Though frankly the group that is doing the best in terms of (anti?) evangelism is the non-category: atheist, agnostic, none, don't know, don't care.

As for the rest you misunderstood me. I think the mainline churches are basically stable and have been for almost 100 years theologically. The leadership is more uniformly left wing but the membership has move right. Its the evangelical churches I see adapting the position of the mainline churches from a century and a half ago on matters of biblical theory. In 1970 fundamentalists were KJVonly that position is now seen as a modern heresy. I understand your position, which I've called the catholic position, though I'm not sure how you can use it to argue against the NA27. Why could you not equally argue that the Holy Spirit is rejecting those passages today, rejecting the apocrypha as scripture. In other words why believe the church was broadly correct in the 4th century when it changed things from the 2nd century but not in the 20th century when it changed things from the 4th century?

That being a case I'll think you'll agree that right now the "return to the originals". Books like Pagan Christianity by Viola and Barna are the norm. Their history is bunk but their vision of returning to the pure Christianity of some mythical past I think is quite mainstream and getting more so all time. The kinds of radical critiques of Christianity you would have seen in 19th century are mainstream today. Its dicey because infallibility has been a litmus test. Conservative walk up to that line as close they can.

As for the virgin birth, I think that was an issue of a century ago. In general materialists today reject Christianity outright, its hard to imagine a Pearl Buck being a leading Christian thinker rather than as simply a secular humanitarian.

Your point about the English tradition, IMHO understates the case. Most of the tradition that is being cut away doesn't date to the KJV it dates to the Vulgate. As for first instance with respect to John, I'm with Bultmann. Price's translation has John in Bultmann's order:

1, 2:1-13a, 5, 7:15-24, 3:22-30, 4, 6, 7:1-14, 7:25-29, 7:40-43:, 7:30-32, 7:44-52, 7:37-39, 9, 8:12-20, 10:19-29, 10:1-18, 10:30-42, 11, 12:1-19, 7:53, 8:1-11, 2:13b-25, 8:31-59, 3:1-13, 3:31-36, 12:20-33, 7:33-36, 8:21-30, 12:34-36a, 3:14-21, 12:44-50, 12:36b-43, 13:1-35, 15:9-17, 14:15-24, 15:1-8, 15:18-27, 16:1-23a, 14:1-14, 16:23b-33, 14:25-30, 13:36-38, 17-21

And having read it in that order I find Bultmann's argument even more compelling.

[Frank Collins]

Whenever someone comes out with a new "translation" of the Bible, the first thing I do is look to see if they continue to use the transliteration "baptize".

The translators of the King James Bible transliterated the word out of fear that the sprinkling king would kill them. These so called new translations are not afraid for their lives. They simply want to sell Bibles to those who do not hold to immersion.

This Bible claims they want to remove the arcane words. So much for that thought.

[JohnFH]

Hi Frank,

I have no problems with "baptize." When the expression in Greek is a technical term for the conversion rite, the transliteration works very well.

[Barry Krause]

The CEB claims to put the bible in simpler language but in fact gives free reign to changing the meaning of the scripture. Check it out for yourself. Compare any verses you want of the CEB against any of the recognized translations.
I'll give one simple but important example. Lk 17:20b-21. Jesus said "the kingdom of God is within you." Not "among you" as stated in the CEB. Inside or within is the correct translation of the Greek word "entos". And the word "among" actually contradicts the point Jesus was trying to make.

[John Hobbins]

Hi Barry,

I appreciate your comment. However, the example you give is telling. Here is the comment of a highly respected scholar (I Howard Marshall):

The meaning of the final clause depends upon the translation of ἐντός. The word occurs in Mt. 23:26** with the meaning ‘inside’. A long tradition accordingly translates ἐντὸς ὑμῶν as ‘within you’ (intra vos, it vg; Origen; AV; Barclay; NIV; Turner, 61–63; Dalman, 145–147; Easton, 262; Creed, 218f. (as Luke’s view); Percy, 216–223; R. J. Sneed*). It is not an objection to this view that Jesus is addressing the Pharisees, for the ‘you’ is quite indefinite. More important is the fact that nowhere else is the kingdom regarded as something internal (cf. Kümmel, 33f.; Manson, Sayings, 304). R. J. Sneed* uses the analogy with Rom. 14:17 to show the equivalence of the Spirit and the kingdom, but this does not prove the point. Jesus speaks of men entering the kingdom, not of the kingdom entering men. A different translation is demanded, and is not difficult to find. With a plural noun ἐντός means ‘among, in the midst of’ (NEB t; cf. A. Sledd*; Kümmel, 33 n.; Grässer, 194). Considerable discussion has surrounded the use of the word in the papyri. C. H. Roberts* drew attention to various papyri in which he claimed the word had the meaning ‘in the hands of, in the control of, within the power of’; hence the force here is ‘within your reach’ or ‘within your grasp’ (cf. Dodd, 401 n., withdrawing his earlier support for ‘within’; A. Rüstow*). The papyri were reinterpreted by H. Riesenfeld* and A. Wikgren* who suggested the meaning ‘in the house of’, i.e. ‘in your domain, among you’. Such a meaning gives good sense. Jesus is speaking of the presence of the kingdom of God among men, possibly as something within their grasp if they will only take hold of it.

Marshall, I. H. (1978). The Gospel of Luke: a commentary on the Greek text (p. 655). Exeter: Paternoster Press.

[Barry Krause]

Thanks for your reprint of I.H. Marshall. However, I tend to follow the comments of Dr. William Barclay, the Scottish New Testiment scholar, who on Luke 17:20,21 says, "We are not quite sure what Jesus went on to say. The Greek may mean two things." I condense Barclay's writing. "(a) It may mean. the kingdom of God is within you. That is to say, the kingdom of God works in men's hearts. Or, (b) the kingdom of God is among you. That would refer to Jesus himself."
Barclay does not list the option of men entering a kingdom. Although I believe that this is true also. It is just in a different context. A future kingdom entered after death or upon Christ's return. But I choose (a)"within" for Christ's meaning here based on the contex of his overall teachings.

[John Hobbins]

Barclay's (a) may well be correct.

But note that Barclay regards (b) = CEB as an alternative worth considering. CEB has plenty of faults, I'm afraid, but choosing (b) rather than (a) is, in and of itself, not one of them.

[Barry Krause]

John,
Thanks for your comments. I appreciate the kind demeanor of your replies. There is much about the Bible we aren't able to understand and as such there are bound to be varying opinions. But the parts we do understand have a great message of hope and comfort. Hope all is well for you.