New Bible Book Is ‘Awkward’ on Purpose; Illustrations Meant To Stir Critical Thinking

21

Despite its title and seemingly playful illustrations, the intended audience of The Awkward Moments Children's Bible is not simply boys and girls. Rather than offering familiar Old and New Testament stories alongside colorful depictions of Jesus, Moses, Noah and David, the book contrasts some of Bible's most controversial, strange, and violent verses alongside cheerfully jarring and dramatic pictures.

According to author Horus Gilgamesh, one of the goals behind these provocative juxtapositions is to encourage more Christians to critically think about the Bible.

"Frankly what it comes down to is we want people to think about the Bible for themselves, not just going to church once a month or once a week and nodding their head and cherry-picking and taking things out of context," Gilgamesh told The Christian Post.

According to Gilgamesh, many Christians know little about their own faith, pointing to a 2010 Pew study that showed that 55 percent of American Christians could not name the writers of the four Gospels as evidence. Instead, the author claimed, many over-rely on churches and sermons to explain the Bible to them, without doing their own spiritual homework.

Written By: Morgan Lee
continue to source article at christianpost.com

21 COMMENTS

  1. Instead, the author claimed, many over-rely on churches and sermons to explain the Bible to them, without doing their own spiritual homework.

    Do their homework? That’s a laugh, one of the ‘advantages’ of believing god did it, is it saves them the trouble of thinking further.

  2. I have a copy of the “Junior Bible”, given to me in 1951 by my grandfather who was a presbyterian minister. It’s not nearly awkward enough, though it does keep away from the icky parts pretty neatly.

    Steve

  3. The KVJ on the story of Lot uses the ambiguous word “to know” for “to rape”. The Qur’an version has the people just asking “What strangers did you invite into your house? They might be dangerous. Let’s have a look at them” — no sexual implication at all. I wonder what the original said.

    • In reply to #6 by Roedy:

      The KVJ on the story of Lot uses the ambiguous word “to know” for “to rape”. The Qur’an version has the people just asking “What strangers did you invite into your house? They might be dangerous. Let’s have a look at them” — no sexual implication at all. I wonder what the original said.

      Which is where we get the term ‘to know… in the biblical sense’. E.g. I knew your mother… in the biblical sense. And nine months later you were born!

  4. That’s some pseudonym “Gilgamesh”… Wow. This takes some balls.

    The slaves of the Bible were not necessarily “African americans” and the owners were definitely NOT caucasians in southern US garb. Wow….. wow… this is a bit startling.

    The juxtaposition of the exodus quote and the white doctor, white “southern gentleman”, and the black “slave” seems in very very very poor taste. I can’t decide if I like the power of the gut reaction or I do not like the crassness of the presentation. Maybe, that makes it “art” (whatever that means). It definitely elicits a visceral reaction and I am genuinely confused about how I should “feel”.

    I guess it nails the “mission statement” of the author, but…. wow…. still digesting it. Not sure I’d side with people who so flippantly make caricatures of American slaves superimposed on the text regarding slaves of biblical times… Kinda like performers in blackface.

    • In reply to #8 by crookedshoes:

      The slaves of the Bible were not necessarily “African americans” and the owners were definitely NOT caucasians in southern US garb. Wow….. wow… this is a bit startling.

      Fair enough. Name the race that used biblical authority to enslave and plunder and rape and maim humans and wild life around the planet as “gods chosen” people? Of course other races have done it in the name of other gods & other holy books (e.g. Hindus, Incas, Greeks), but which other race used biblical justification in the scale that Caucasians did?

      As the saying goes, if the shoes fit…

    • In reply to #8 by crookedshoes:

      That’s some pseudonym “Gilgamesh”… Wow. This takes some balls.

      The slaves of the Bible were not necessarily “African americans” and the owners were definitely NOT caucasians in southern US garb. Wow….. wow… this is a bit startling.

      those are the very slaveowners who piously justified their cruelty with those verses.

      >

      The juxtaposition of the exodus quote and the white docto…

    • In reply to #8 by crookedshoes:

      That’s some pseudonym “Gilgamesh”… Wow. This takes some balls.

      The slaves of the Bible were not necessarily “African americans” and the owners were definitely NOT caucasians in southern US garb. Wow….. wow… this is a bit startling.

      The obvious interpretation is that the verse says what is depicted is OK, or at least within the rules and tolerable. I guess it depends how often other stories are represented in terms other than the imagined worlds of the evangelicals and other political powers through the period of Christian power, and draws from credible history.

  5. I was trying to recognise the translation used. It turns out it is the YAMV (Yet Another Man’s Version) the author did himself.

    I was puzzled by God regretting creating any animals in this translation, then preserving two of each species. Gilgamesh is just accentuating the goofiness.

    The book is #1 at Amazon in the humour section.

  6. For those who question the use of a southern slave owner in the cartoon, might find it interesting that:

    “In the 1860s, Southern preachers defending slavery also took the Bible literally. They asked who could question the Word of God when it said, “slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling” (Ephesians 6:5), or “tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect” (Titus 2:9). Christians who wanted to preserve slavery had the words of the Bible to back them up.”

    (From http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-02-28-column28_ST_N.htm )

    Granted, in the old testament, there were Hebrew slaves, and non-Hebrew slaves. Hebrew slaves were property for a few years, while non-Hebrews were slaves forever and had a bad time of it. While a slave owner could rape a young woman sold to him in either type, the status of the children the resulted from that rape was different. (sheesh!)

  7. I think the black slave owner makes the story easier to empathize. It shows the Biblical story as being clearly a social lie. Brilliant. There should be another illustration of someone at the Canadian border. “What is your purpose for entering our country?” “The Bible says I can enslave someone from neighboring countries and I fully intend on exercising my God given right.”

  8. I hear everybody and see the point. It is taken. I guess this is “art”….. it certainly has me “feeling” things. I do not disapprove at all, I just had a visceral reaction to the OP’s picture and exodus quote. Again, i am not casting aspersion, but just repeatedly uttering “wow, what balls…” Not a bad thing, by the way. But, very very interesting.

  9. They have a great Facebook page that has released a few more of the pages of the book if you would like to see more. I’ve been following along for months while they prepared for release and they kept putting out teasers. It’s on my list, along with A Manual for Creating Atheists, Was Hitler a Darwinian, and 50 Great Myths About Atheism.

  10. In reply to #8 by crookedshoes:

    That’s some pseudonym “Gilgamesh”.

    I quite like the first name too!

    http://www.pantheon.org/articles/h/horus.html -
    The name “Horus” is a general catchall for multiple deities, the most famous of whom is Harseisis (Heru-sa-Aset) or Horus-son-of-Isis (sometimes called Horus the Younger) who was conceived after the death of his father, Osiris, and who later avenged him. In all the Horus deities the traits of kingship, sky and solar symbology, and victory reoccur. As the prototype of the earthly king, there were as many Horus gods as there were rulers of Egypt, if not more.

  11. The words “he should go back to work!” just do not apear in the original hebrew text. I hope it’s a mistake rather than a deliberate misleading of the writers. the hebrew verse says “וְכִי-יַכֶּה אִישׁ אֶת-עַבְדּוֹ אוֹ אֶת-אֲמָתוֹ בַּשֵּׁבֶט וּמֵת תַּחַת יָדוֹ נָקֹם יִנָּקֵם. כא אַךְ אִם-יוֹם אוֹ יוֹמַיִם יַעֲמֹד לֹא יֻקַּם כִּי כַסְפּוֹ הוּא.”. As a native hebrew speaker, the most literal translation of this text is “if a man beats his slave, man or fmale, with a stick, and he died – the owner should be punished. However, if the slave stands up within a day or two days – the owner should not be punished; the slave is the owner’s property”.

    For some reason, the writers also forgot to quate the the following verses, that states that if some physical damage occured to the slave – and the example in the text is a broken teeth – the slave should become a free man. I doubt if this rule was valid in the american south during slavery time. I don’t claim the biblical text is acceteble according to contemporary moral standarts, but one should not distort the truth.

Leave a Reply