Bro Gary Hawkins 23: Give Us the History

[AmazonGrace]

Everybody's doing a brand new dance now

come on baby do the college

I know you'll get to like it if you give it a chance now

come on baby do the college

Edited November 28, 2023 by AmazonGrace
riffles

[thoughtful]

4 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

Everybody's doing a brand new dance now

come on baby do the college

I know you'll get to like it if you give it a chance now

come on baby do the college

My dirty mind went here:

Spoiler

 

[AmazonGrace]

Well yes i thought servicing and farthering could have been an euphemism for 

Spoiler

Deepthroating

But you didn't hear it from me, I will deny everything 

[thoughtful]

Gary on Christmas (and comments). I think the "people a x" is supposed to be "people add x." I guess Gary doesn't know that "Xmas" is not disrespectful - the X stands for the Greek word Christos (Χριστός). 

Anyway, we need to teach out children, and not about all of those Santa Clauses.

Spoiler

ETA one more comment.

Edited November 29, 2023 by thoughtful

[Xan]

Frankly, if I went to Walmart and saw a bunch of Jesuses propped up on the ends of aisles, I'd be a little creeped out.  

Once again, I think that part of this is just Gary's stinginess.  He and some other fundies whom we know say that there is no Santa Claus so they don't have to buy kids presents.  It works for them.  

Edited November 29, 2023 by Xan

[Hane]

Quotation from a colleague who attended an evangelical church: “We don’t teach the kids about Santa Claus because we want them to believe in God.” OK then.

[Black Aliss]

On 11/25/2023 at 12:27 PM, Jasmar said:

Maybe God could get his shit together and do something about the wars in Ukraine, Yemen, and Israel/Gaza. Or the children with terminal illnesses. Or the homeless. 

IK,R? Turns out God isn't nearly as omnipotent as he gets credit for being. He can't even dodge space junk.

Spoiler

 

20 hours ago, Xan said:

Frankly, if I went to Walmart and saw a bunch of Jesuses propped up on the ends of aisles, I'd be a little creeped out.

I'm imaging giant inflatable lawn ornaments of Jesus at various stages of life, from manger to the cross.

[keepercjr]

22 hours ago, thoughtful said:

Gary on Christmas (and comments). I think the "people a x" is supposed to be "people add x." I guess Gary doesn't know that "Xmas" is not disrespectful - the X stands for the Greek word Christos (Χριστός). 

Anyway, we need to teach out children, and not about all of those Santa Clauses.

  Hide contents

ETA one more comment.

A bunch of biblical scholars this lot. 

[thoughtful]

Gary was without Becky in church tonight.

Pastor Baker asked prayers for "brother Gary's wife Rebecca," because "she's not having a good day."

I don't have the patience for checking his sermon tonight, but I did skip ahead and found him talking about the dancing Moses and the people supposedly did after crossing the sea. He makes sure they know it's not sexy dancing (I'm sure Gary was relieved), and quotes the definition from the fundy's favorite dictionary - the Webster's 1828 Bible dictionary.

It says "to leap or spring, hence, to leap or move with measured steps, regulated by a tune sung or played on an instrument."

He says he asked someone, before church, to help him with something. He claims the man asked (he puts on a dopey voice), "Uh, OK - you gonna need my masculine muscles?" He goes on to claim that he said "Nope, ummm, and in fact, the opposite," and that the person answered "Oh, I'll be good at that."

He then proceeds to have a young man stand up in front of the church, and demonstrate leaping and springing with measured steps, down the aisle.

The person he asked to do this was not one of the strapping, confident young men. He is the son of someone else on the staff, and I get the impression that he is not neurotypical. In any case, he just seemed like a vulnerable person for Baker to put through this nonsense.

At least the person working the camera wasn't ready - they zoomed out, trying to film it, but didn't, I'm happy to say.

Edited November 30, 2023 by thoughtful
riffle

[Xan]

Baker is setting off my bullshit meter on this one.  How would he know the way Moses danced?  Did it say in his 1828 Bible dictionary that no hips were swinging?  Were there no shoulders moving about?  No hands clapping?  Instead of joyful, carefree dancing, he would have us think that the people sort of non-sexually bounced along with measured steps.  If I had been in the congregation, I might have started laughing.  It's a pity that these brave, strong Christians are terrified of dancing.

[AmazonGrace]

I thought that a manly man would have nothing but masculine muscles.

Shows you how little I know.

[thoughtful]

It's the happy couple's anniversary.

Gary, most people love to add how many years they've been married when they discuss their wedding anniversary. But you and Becky never do, do you?

Funny thing, that.

Comments are all generic congratulations, with a few fundy exceptions, including this one:

Spoiler

Victory? Does everything have to be about being saved, Darrell? Maybe Darrell knows their history, and is congratulating them on their victory over fornication.

 

[thoughtful]

Becky, I have a great gift for you to give to Gary for your anniversary. It's sort of . . . the fashion of the Christ.

https://philosophersguild.com/products/what-would-jesus-wear

Spoiler

 

 

I swear I posted the above (with outfits I'm sure Gary would find effeminate, and Jesus' long hair) before checking Gary's Facebook again (if this is in the same post, it's because they merged). He posted this:

Spoiler

Why would a man want to be women or a man to be a man?

Becky posted (and Adrienne thanked her):

Spoiler

ETA a comment under Gary's anniversary post. Reading comprehension, Briggs - it's a thing:

Spoiler

 

Edited December 1, 2023 by thoughtful

[thoughtful]

The latest from Gary. So, let's see, what do we have here? The implication that "bus kids" (generally poor, often non-white) would be expected to be the stupidest people, the usual nasty swipe at other translations of the bible and real bible scholars, and a picture of a  Baptist preacher so stereotypical that it's hard to imagine he's not a character in a movie, with the added bonus of the ceiling lights reflected in his bald head making him look like some sort of alien.

Yeah, Gary - I let it sink in. I may need to throw it back up.

[thoughtful]

Gary continues his brave crusade against stores that want us to be robots (which is what he thinks self-checkout does):

If the stick figure man wasn't wearing a shirt, I wouldn't have even thought of this because, y'know - they're stick figures. But the shirt makes it seem like he is nekkid from the waist down, and she is totally nekkid!

Comments:

Spoiler

 

[mango_fandango]

10 hours ago, thoughtful said:

The latest from Gary. So, let's see, what do we have here? The implication that "bus kids" (generally poor, often non-white) would be expected to be the stupidest people, the usual nasty swipe at other translations of the bible and real bible scholars, and a picture of a  Baptist preacher so stereotypical that it's hard to imagine he's not a character in a movie, with the added bonus of the ceiling lights reflected in his bald head making him look like some sort of alien.

Yeah, Gary - I let it sink in. I may need to throw it back up.

Damn that dude’s head is so shiny!

 

[AmazonGrace]

One of the Shiny happy people no doubt

[thoughtful]

It needs to be said - GOD is up set, and the KJB GOD only words.

Think real hard about it.

[thoughtful]

Becky and Gary were both in church this morning. As ever, Becky stayed in her seat before church and during the greeting. I've noticed more and more lately, that Gary doesn't really move around and schmooze with people. I don't know if he's not feeling comfortable with this community as time goes on, if he's just hovering near Becky, or what.

I heard enough of Baker's sermon to know that it may have inspired Gary to post, yet again, about how the KJV is the only bible. Baker had people (all men) look at Acts 8:37 in various bibles.

He asks everyone that has a bible with them to open it to that verse, then asks those who have some other bible besides the KJV (he'd had someone hand out non-KJV bibles) to raise their hands, so he can remember who they are.

He says "I want to show you what is taken out of so many - quote - bibles."

He sets up the scene - Phillip is preaching to the Ethiopian eunuch, he tells them. They come to a body of water, and the eunuch asks if there is any reason he should not go ahead and be baptized. Per the KJV:

Quote

And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

He asks someone what it says in the bible he's looking at, and we faintly hear "It's not there." He says he's looking at the RSV.

Another version (the guy doesn't say which), has verse 36 listed as "36-37," and Baker comments on how "deceptive" that is.

He calls on another guy by mistake, who doesn't have a non-KJV, and says he'd thought he was one of the people who raised their hand.

Next guy says he has no verse 37, but has a footnote with the missing verse. Baker says that footnotes will often say that it wasn't in the original manuscripts, but some versions add it. Baker says that adding to the bible would be even worse than taking something out.

He calls on a few more men, very quickly, who all say that verse 37 is not in whatever version they are looking at. This includes Gary.

Nobody says what version they are looking at. The last guy reads his version's verse 36, and Baker looks a bit impatient. Was that not in the plan, Dave?

Baker goes on to say that they (ah, the evil "they!") take it out because they claim "that verse is not in the oldest and best manuscripts." He says that's a lie, and goes on in some detail about the various manuscripts (Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus - he pronounces them Syneeaticus, Alexandrians, and Vyticaynus).

We get some caption fun when he says "One is found in a library in Alexandria."

Spoiler

Besides the one found in that library (he says the library was secular, so that manuscript could not be a good source), another was found "in a trash can at the bottom of Mount Sinai," and the third was found . . . (brace yourself) "in the Vatican. In the Vatican."

He goes on to blah blah blah about how there are older manuscripts that are better, but I'll spare you. He also says that the fact that verse 36 is a question and 37 is the answer, that shows that the people who took it out "didn't like that, didn't believe it."

He goes on to do roughly the same thing with Matthew 18:11:

Quote

For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

Then Matthew 23:14:

Quote

 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

Both are completely missing from the non-KJV bibles.

He does a few others. He bops around his bible checkers, who all quickly say those verses are gone. He tells them that the supposedly oldest and best manuscripts that "they" use for these other versions of the bible are corrupt and satanic, from a false prophet and false witness, but "they've gotten into intelligentsia."

Gotta hate the intelligentsia.

He babbles about how those manuscripts are given various nicknames - nestles, critical texts, or what sounds like "alafin B" when he says it. I suspect that's supposed to be "aleph and bet," (first two letters of the Hebrew alphabet). Captions:

Spoiler

The whole routine about manuscripts seems very non-IFB to me. Isn't their shtick that the 1611 translators were getting the original, God-breathed text, and isn't that all that matters?

I skimmed a bit of the rest - it mostly seems like a more complicated version of Gary's screed. He also claims "they" always try to change enough to get a new copyright, because what they really want is to make money.

At one point, he has them read 1 Samuel 20:30, which contains the phrase "Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman." He says: "Perverse? Do we understand that word still today? Rebellious, do we understand that? Just sorta goes together with woman. Joking, joking." Captions:

Spoiler

I think the captions are wishing revenge on you for that, Dave.

He claims that The Living Bible changes it to "you son of a bitch." Well, he says "son of a B" of course.

I looked it up. Living Bible:

Quote

Saul boiled with rage. “You fool!”[a] he yelled at him. “Do you think I don’t know that you want this son of a nobody to be king in your place, shaming yourself and your mother?

In the footnotes, it says:

Quote

Footnotes

1 Samuel 20:30 You fool, literally, “Son of a perverse, rebellious woman.” The modern equivalent is “son of a bitch.” this son of a nobody, literally, “son of Jesse.”

Of course, he goes on to say how that is not the kind of language that should be in the holy bible. He also claims it is in the children's version of The Living Bible, which I could not find. He makes up a scenario of a child using that kind of language, then using the fact that it's in the bible as their excuse.

Then he lectures them about not leaving things out of their perception of the bible, their mental bible, as it were. He asks if things like obedience, generosity, self-control, prayer, not judging, etc. are in their bible.

Those people who put together the other bibles, he says, don't believe any of it, then asks "what's our excuse?"

Then, proudly, he says "I went through 23 points in 10 minutes. A record."

After the altar call, he asks someone to collect the non-KJV bibles, and tells them that he collects different versions of the bible, and "when they're wrong, I put an X on 'em," so people won't think they are actual bibles.

Becky and Gary were in church again tonight. I haven't listened to it.

Edited December 4, 2023 by thoughtful
clarity, correcting an error due to my having skipped too much of the beginning of the message

[AmazonGrace]

How come none of the things that need to be said ever need to be said

[Xan]

It would only be fair if Brother Baker preached a sermon on what was left out of the King James version.  After all, those translators left out not only some verses but also entire books.  For example, the earlier version of Psalms 14:3-4 reads:

But they are all gone out of the way, they are all together become abominable; there is none that does good, no not one. [Their throat is an open sepulcre: with their tongues they have disceaued, the poison of aspes is under their lips. Their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness, their feet are swift to shed blood. Destruction and unhappiness is in their ways, and the way of peace have they not known, there is no fear of God before their eyes.] Have they known me, that are such workers of mischief, eating up my people, as it were bread and call not upon the Lord? There were they brought in great fear [even where no fear was] for God is in the generation of the righteous.

The bolded are parts that were left out and, if I'm reading it correctly, the wording was changed.  The books of the Apocrypha were also left out.

So, Brother Gary -- something to think about.

Edited December 4, 2023 by Xan

[Alisamer]

It sounds like this dude is trying very hard to sound well-educated and intelligent while succeeding at the exact opposite. 

I'd like to know exactly how they know that the earliest known versions of the text are "satanic" while the later, less accurate ones are somehow exactly what God wanted the Bible to say.

Like, if God wanted the Bible to say just one thing ever, why not just put down the whole thing indelibly on stone in one language one time, put it somewhere protected, and smite anyone who tries to translate or paraphrase it? Why have it be piecemeal over the course of centuries, assembled differently by different groups, be in more than one language (languages which are very rare today), be translated variously in various times over centuries... and most of all why in the world would this one particular 1611 version commissioned by a bisexual king and done in a language unknown by Jesus in a dialect no longer spoken and translated without the earliest documents be the one true version, somehow? 

I just don't get how and why they think this. And like where did the idea originate? Why is it so popular in IFB groups, while many other Christian denominations don't care much which version you use as long as its not a parody? 

[Jasmar]

I really, really want to hear Gary fumble “intelligentsia!”

[thoughtful]

1 hour ago, Alisamer said:

It sounds like this dude is trying very hard to sound well-educated and intelligent while succeeding at the exact opposite. 

You nailed it - that's Baker, at least to my ears. He is very slick and confident, so I suspect his congregants think he is both learned about the bible and up-to-date with the evils of The World.

55 minutes ago, Jasmar said:

I really, really want to hear Gary fumble “intelligentsia!”

I doubt if Gary even knows the word - he probably has to ask Becky what half of the words Baker uses mean.

[Xan]

I think Gary would be easy to brainwash.  If you had the right man talking and he sounded religious, Gary would eat it up.  Brainwashing some people would be like laundering a pair of overalls that are covered in grease, mud, and ink stains.  Washing Gary's brain would be like laundering a napkin that was soiled with a few cracker crumbs.