THE CURSE OF THE NIGERIAN 'BIG G' GOD

The narrow, dirt streets in southern cities like Aba and Port Harcourt are lined with zinc and wood structures with motorcycles parked in front of them and worshipers dancing to praise songs in traditional languages with their white handkerchiefs. On the wide, tarred major roads, gigantic churches - beautiful by all standards and filled to the brim - add valor to the streets with the large billboards and newest cars parked in front of them. Up north, mosques are fewer, larger and even more elegantly adorned than churches but filled up nonetheless.

The religious faithful gather to pray, women lined up behind men, either in these tall, gold majestic mosques or on the corners of the streets where there are no official structures. In Lagos or Abuja or any other major city where migrant tribes are as dominant as indigenous ones,  the religions are not as distinct from each other; mosques sit side by side with churches. It is Nigeria, where almost the entire population identifies as either Christian or Muslim.
The most populous sub-Saharan nation embodies historical, cultural, ethnic, and linguistic diversity as well as diversity of religious traditions including indigenous religions, new Spiritual movements and various strands of Christianity and Islam. The distribution of Christians and Muslims is stark in the predominantly Muslim north and predominantly Christian south but not as stark in the Western region, where Christians and Muslims exist in almost even numbers. The scriptures of the major holy books of each religion, the Bible and the Q'uran are plastered on the walls of homes, cars and city walls.
Religion continues to shape the ways in which Nigerians interpret the complexities of their existence and surrounding realities; to the extent of religion serving as a panacea for problems of day to day living. Christianity and Islam are the predominant practices in Nigeria with 45% of Nigerians identifying as Muslim and another 45% identifying as Christian. However, both religions are thoroughly influenced by indigenous religious and cultural traditions. One clear distinction between the two main monotheistic religions in Nigeria and the African Traditional Religions (ATRs) is that the former have sent God to Heaven while the latter have their gods on Earth.
When God was sent to heaven, He was sent along with the godliness and virtue that men used to have for things around them. All of a sudden, the Earth and its fullness thereof were no longer sacred because God had been removed from them. In fact, monotheistic religions encouraged their members to not only dominate but conquer the Earth. The Earth became a mere tool for man's anthropocentric agenda; nothing more than a base upon which man can proudly stand to exterminate everything else that existed in unison before man came along. The Earth became a less worthy being, one that deserved taming and exploitation. The Earth became a wildfire to douse, her parts became objects of war and her less mighty people became like mud to trample upon.
This is what happened with the Nigerian 'big G' God.
Nigerian monotheists spend more time justifying their God than they do serving Him and having God-like virtue is like having lady-like characteristics: if you have to defend it constantly with more words than character, you probably don't have it. Bring a piece of God back down to Earth. Bring an even smaller piece back down to Nigeria. We need it. If humans are greater species because humans have souls, how about we nurture and cultivate rather than destroy and conquer?
Monotheistic religion in Nigeria is both a blessing and a curse. Yet, this sentence will probably anger many Nigerians because God is the one part of Nigerian "culture" that Nigerians have refused to accept is borrowed especially as Nigerians are very inconsistent in their definition of 'culture' and 'foreign', per convenience. Monotheistic religion is the one part of Nigerian culture that Nigerians profess the most and understand the least. Monotheistic religion is the worst vice the colonials left Nigerians with because they left a piece of their arrogance, a piece of their self-righteousness on over a 100 million sheep.
I find God in the swaying leaves, in the sturdy mountains and in the chill of the river. In the same breath that we enthrone Him on high, we must regard Him in the simple things. If we did, we would not devastate a community's livelihood in Ogoni because our foolish wisdom discovered oil. If we did, we would not steal from the poor and give to the rich. If we did, we would not define our progress by how many churches are found on each street but by how many of our children are righteous and how many of our old men are wise. Righteousness is like wealth, those who've mastered its craft don't need to speak about it; their lifestyles do without much effort. Religion can be a virtue in Nigeria but it isn't one yet. Until then, like I have mentioned before, Nigeria is not a literary and artistic land of contradictions but a pitiful paradox.

Oluwafunmilayo Oyatogun is the founder of BailiffAfrica.Org.

WHAT REALLY HAPPENED IN THE GARDEN OF EDEN?

In Genesis 32: 25, Jacob wrestled with God. The Bible says that, God touched “the hollow of his (Jacob’s) thigh.” In Genesis 47: 29, when Jacob was near his death, he asked Joseph to swear an oath not to bury him in Egypt by, “putting your hand under my thigh.” What does ‘thigh’ in those expressions mean? Who puts his hand under someone’s thigh to swear? Was it an ancient tradition? Does ‘thigh’ refer to something else in Hebrew, the original language of the Jews used in the Old Testament scripts? Or was it a euphemism?
Ziony Zevit, a professor of Biblical Literature and Northwest Semitic Languages at the American Jewish University in Los Angeles states that the world “tsela” in Hebrew does not mean ‘rib’ as translated in Genesis. He said that it means ‘side’ literally. In his book, “What Really Happened in the Garden of Eden?” he suggested that ‘rib’ does not make sense in the story of creation that was littered with sexual innuendo. He said that the writers of the book of Genesis used ‘tsela’ as a euphemism for ‘baculum’ – penis bone- found in Chimpanzee, gorilla and males of other mammals. There is no term for penis in Biblical Hebrew. In a way, the story in Genesis provides a mythological explanation for the lack of this bone in man.

Put in that context, the line of the Bible that says, “And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and He took the bone of Adam’s rib and made him a woman” will then read that God took the bone of Adam’s penis.

Translation is hard. Translating a text written and rewritten by many writers straight from oral tradition is a lot harder. It is a hardest when the translation is ordered by people with a particular agenda.

The King James Version of the Bible was 400 years old last year.

In 1604, King James I of England gathered 54 scholars at the Hampton Court Conference, all member of the Church of England, to translate the Bible into English. The King was concerned about problems in the available translations of the Bible. Out of the 54 scholars gathered, 47 finished the work in 1611.

The scholars were divided into six groups. Each group was responsible for a different part of the Bible. Some were based in Oxford, some in Cambridge while others were in London. They based their work on the Tyndale Bible, the first printed Bible translation into English from Hebrew and Greek, and on the Bishop’s Bible of 1568. The John Wycliffe Bible was the first English translation of the Bible in a manuscript form. It was banned in 1409 but its texts showed up in the Latin Vulgate. Tyndale Bible was succeeded by the Great Bible of 1539. The Reformed Protestants based in Geneva under John Calvin revised the Tyndale Bible and the Great Bible to produce the Geneva Bible.

The King James Version became the third printed translation of the Bible into English.

King James’ instruction to the translators was to make sure that the new Bible conformed with the ecclesiology of the Church of England. He was also interested in getting a Bible that would reflect the Church’s belief on the ordination of clergy. The other available Bibles at that time had divergent views. The King James Version was seen as ‘a document of political and theological compromise.’

Though the first edition claimed that it was translated “out of the Original tongues,” it was clearly based on the two previous English translations. Scholars were correcting grave errors on the margins of the previous translations like one in the Great Bible where, ‘They were not obedient;’ was translated into ‘They were not disobedient.’

The scholars made draft of changes they recommended on the margins of specially printed Bishop’s Bible. They compared and revised these works. A general committee made general changes with the Archbishop of London having the final say.

The 1611 print was made before the standardization of the English language. Spelling of words, punctuation and grammar were later revised. In the preface, the translators stated that their goal was not to make a bad translation good but to make a good translation better.

Initially the new Bible was rejected by leading Bible scholars of the time. They still preferred the Latin Vulgate. It took a long time for the King James Version to become universally accepted. It reached that height in early 18th century. That was when a challenge to its text was seen as an assault on the Holy Scripture. For over 250 years, the King James Version was the dominant Bible.

Though dominant, thousands of changes have been made in the course of time. From 1638 to 1762 the text had a lot of printers’ errors. In 1631, the Eight Commandment read: “Though shall commit adultery.” That edition is often referred to as the Wicked Bible. In 1653 another error in 1 Corinthians stated that the unrighteous shall inherit the earth. That edition is called the “Unrighteous Bible.” There are greater mistranslations noticed over the years. It is so widespread that each reinterpretation seems to lead to yet another version of the Bible.

Though the King James Version of the Bible was the most influential, it was, like others before and after it, aimed at satisfying its own interest group – in this case, the Church of England. It is not impartial and its translation has been questioned over the years. As our understanding of the world of the biblical age increases, so are questions about the translations. Archaeological excavations have unearthed ancient documents that question the understandings and translations of the texts. The Bible’s continuing translation problems remain us that it a book of other people who lived in other times and spoke other languages.

“The Christian appropriation of the Jewish scripture involved allegorical or figural readings of many of the texts,” says the introduction of the Oxford World’s Classics of The Authorized King James Version of The Bible. “Often, however, these did not so much replace literal readings as complement them, so that multi-level, or polysemous, readings became the normal method of biblical interpretation.”

Unlike the Quran which is in Arabic, the language of the founder and most of the adherents, the Bible came about from scriptures written in a language that no Christian spoke. The Christians believe that the translation of the Bible was inspired. The Muslims believe that the English version of the Quran is not a translation and does not have the inspiration they find in the Arabic Quran.

The Bible, unlike the Quran, evolved from oral tradition. It was written by several writers over a long period of time and in several languages. It was put together by a committee.
The King James Version has remained the most influential translations of the Bible. It is also ranked as one of the influential books in the English language. It makes up over 15% of all American Bible purchases.

As we celebrate the birth of Christ and the 401 years of the King James Version of the Bible, we remember that we still do not know what really happened in the Garden of Eden.
 
By Rudolf Ogoo Okonkwo
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

SHALL WE BAN RELIGION?

I got the first phone call just before 1:00pm, UK time.  This was Tuesday 13th November 2012.  It was from my sister in Lagos.  She was frantic.  Our younger brother’s wife was bleeding, losing a lot of blood, laid out on a bed at the National Hospital, Abuja.  She had just delivered a baby, their second in just over two years.  My sister informed me that despite serious pleas from everyone in the family, from clinical staff at the hospital, and from concerned strangers, my brother refused to give his consent for his wife to have blood transfusion.
Why?  Unfortunately for his wife, my brother is a Jehovah’s Witness.
I called my brother and spoke to him.  He didn’t budge.  He said his faith; his religion forbids its members from accepting blood under any circumstance.  Though I couldn’t believe what I was hearing, I said that it was ok.  I told him that he could refuse blood transfusion when he is the patient, but since it was his young wife at death’s door, he should give consent for the treatment for her.  I added that after his wife has been saved, he could go ahead and ask for forgiveness from the anti-transfusion god, and once again reconcile himself to his faith.
He declined.  
I then went into the medical aspect of what was happening.  I informed my brother that the average male has only about 5.5 litres of blood in their body.  The average female has even less.  I told him that if the body loses too much of that, there wouldn’t be enough for the heart to pump, and the heart would stop beating.  The patient will die.  He still didn’t budge.  In fact, he promptly hung up on me.  I called him back a few more times but the young man refused to answer his phone.
I called back my sister in Lagos and reported my failure.
T
he second call came at exactly 2:00pm.  This time my sister was crying.  The young lady has died.
I immediately called my brother again.  I wanted to tell him to take and bow and to clap for himself.  But he was still refusing to take my calls.
I spent the rest of the afternoon thinking about religion.  I know that religion has its many benefits, but I am beginning to wonder whether these are outweighed by its negative aspects.  Most people appear to check their intelligence at the door when it comes to their religion and practicing their faith. 
Unfortunately, my brother is one of them.  I couldn’t believe that an educated man (he has a Master’s degree from the University of Ibadan) would sit around and watch his wife die when he could have very easily prevented her death by signing a piece of paper.  What has religion done to us?
I called my other sister in Abuja to get more details.  I wish I hadn’t.  
She informed me that she spent more than an hour on her knees begging our brother to give his consent for his wife to be given blood, but he refused.  He refused her, and he refused all pleadings from the medical staff, some of whom were begging him with tears in their eyes.  He was told repeatedly that without blood transfusion, his wife would die.  He wasn’t moved.  He informed them all that if his wife died from bleeding and never got blood transfusion, she would go straight to Heaven.  This is a novel idea.  If only Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin, Abacha and the rest of them knew this nice little secret.  All they needed to do was slit their own wrists and the express lift to Heaven would have come for them.
Then it got worse.  I was informed that the young lady’s mother was present throughout at the hospital.  The doctors went to her to give consent for her daughter to be given blood to save her life, but the mother also refused!
She too is a Jehovah’s witness.  She maintained throughout that only the husband can give consent, she would not.  
In desperation, the doctors called the young lady’s younger brother who is a junior doctor in Jos.  The deceased worked at the National Assembly and was the main breadwinner in her birth family.  She paid for the education of all of her siblings, including that of this junior doctor.  As the doctors in Abuja pleaded with him on the phone to give consent for his sister to receive blood to save her life, this junior doctor demurred.  He directed that she be given some coagulants and blood clotting agents.  He was informed that all of that has been tried but the patient was still losing blood.  In the end, he refused to give consent.  He claimed that it was the duty of his sister’s husband, not his, and terminated the call.
He too is a Jehovah’s witness.  A doctor!  What has religion done to us?
Before this, I have never imagined that any mother could sit on a chair, fold her arms and watch her child die and not do something about it.  This was a child she gave birth to and nurtured, and who in turn, had been taking care of her in her old age.  I don’t know whether I’m the one losing my mind.  What has religion done to us?
Anyway, the mother and my brother were finally called to go to the lady’s bedside as it became obvious that she was struggling through her last breaths.  Mama ran in the opposite direction shouting, “Jehovah o!  Jehovah is life!  Life is Jehovah!”
qqqqMy brother took his place by his wife’s bedside and watched life ebb out of her.  He stood there and watched her die.  What kind of boldness is that?  What kind of cold-heartedness is that?  When asked why he did what he did, he responded that when he dies, he would marry his dead wife again in Heaven!  Is this logical?  I have to confess that I am not the most religious person in the world, but are there marriages in Heaven?  Are we going to continue having more children in Heaven?
More importantly, would God be pleased with a person who had the power to save one of his children, one of his creations, but deliberately refused to do so?  It is one thing to watch helplessly and only give comfort as someone lies dying on a motorway, but to deliberately and actively withhold life-saving consent?  Especially to your own wife?  Your own child?  Your own sister?
My brother has become a latter-day Abraham.  He even went further by sacrificing his wife on the altar of religious principles.  But why are some religious people like this?  Is it the fear of going against the grain of their faith’s community?  Is it the fear of being seen or being thought as not faithful enough by their fellow religious comrades?  Is it the shame of being considered weak by one’s religious peers?  And if this is the case, are these feelings not trumped by love for another human being?  Personally, I think that it has got to be illiteracy of the mind.
Once upon a time, the Earth was thought to be the centre of the Universe.  That was the Church’s established view.  It was widely accepted that the Sun and all heavenly bodies revolved around an unmoving Earth.  Furthermore, it was thought that if the Earth moved, why are we not flung off its surface?  As Copernicus and science began to intrude, the Church was compelled to re-assert that the idea that the Sun stood still and that the Earth moved were "false" and "altogether contrary to Holy Scripture."  Well, Galileo later published a book, ‘Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems’ in which he argued and proved that the Earth is not the centre of the Universe, and that the Earth does move.  The Church and its head, Pope Urban VIII (who was actually Galileo’s friend) were enraged.  In 1633, Galileo was arrested and found guilty of Heresy.  His book was banned, he was forced to recant, and was placed under house arrest until he died.
But all of that took place in the 16th and 17th centuries.  Why are people today still favouring antiquated religious policies over love for one another – especially after the advent of Jesus Christ?  It cuts across all strata!  I don’t get it!  
The entire belief system of Jehovah's Witnesses is founded on the basis of its teachings about the second coming of Christ.  They are so fixated on the end of the world that they sit there, petrified, unable to move forward.  From year dot, they have been making loud predictions about this.  Some examples:
•    1877: Christ's kingdom would hold full sway over the earth in 1914; the Jews, as a people, would be restored to God's favor; the "saints" would be carried to heaven
•    1891: 1914 would be "the farthest limit of the rule of imperfect men.”
•    1904: "World-wide anarchy" would follow the end of the Gentile Times in 1914.
1914 came and went.  Nothing happened.
•    1916: World War I would terminate in Armageddon and the rapture of the "saints”
•    1920: Messiah's kingdom would be established in 1925 and bring worldwide peace. God would begin restoring the earth. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and other faithful patriarchs would be resurrected to perfect human life and be made princes and rulers, the visible representatives of the New Order on earth. Those who showed themselves obedient to God would never die.
•    1922: The anti-typical "jubilee" that would mark God's intervention in earthly affairs would take place "probably the fall" of 1925.
•    1924: God's restoration of Earth would begin "shortly after" October 1, 1925. Jerusalem would be made the world's capital. Resurrected "princes" such as Abel, Noah, Moses and John the Baptist would give instructions to their subjects around the world by radio, and airplanes would transport people to and from Jerusalem from all parts of the globe in just "a few hours."
1925 came and went.  We are still here.  Things are still the same.
•    1938: In 1938, Armageddon was too close for marriage or child bearing.
•    1941: There were only "months" remaining until Armageddon.
•    1942: Armageddon was "immediately before us."
Hmm…
•    1966: It would be 6000 years since man's creation in the fall of 1975 and it would be "appropriate" for Christ's thousand-year reign to begin at that time. Time was "running out, no question about that." The "immediate future" was "certain to be filled with climactic events...within a few years at most", the final parts of Bible prophecy relating to the "last days" would undergo fulfillment as Christ's reign began.
•    1969: The existing world order would not last long enough for young people to grow old; the world system would end "in a few years." Young Witnesses were told not to bother pursuing tertiary education for this reason.
•    1971: The "battle in the day of Jehovah" was described as beginning "shortly, within our twentieth century".
•    1974: There was just a "short time remaining before the wicked world's end" and Witnesses were commended for selling their homes and property to "finish out the rest of their days in this old system in the pioneer service."
Nope.  Nothing happened.  1975 came and went un-obstructively as well.  
Well, after mama ran away, my brother too voted with his feet.  He couldn’t be found for a few hours.  Eventually he showed up and took his day-old baby over to our sister in Abuja to look after.  The next day, ten of his fellow Kingdom-hallers turned up to stare at the baby.  I cannot help but wonder what would have been going through their minds.  Would they be jubilating that a fellow member has been ‘martyred’ by her husband?  Are they happy that a needless and easily preventable death took place in their midst?
My brother is now faced with the daunting task of raising two infants on his own.  I wonder whether he has thought much about the future.  What would he tell his children when they become old enough and ask about their mother?  Is he going to lie to them for the rest of his life?  They would find out eventually, of course.  And when they do, would they thank him for the leading role he played in their mother’s death?
And bringing up those two infants on his own would be tough – very tough.  I assume he would have to stay single now for the rest of his life since he claimed that when he dies, he would remarry his dead wife in Heaven.  It would therefore be illogical for him to marry someone else again in this world.  That would complicate things for him in Heaven, unless Jehovah Witnesses are entitled to marry more than one wife in the great beyond.
But God is so patient!  The many mad things we do in His name!  What a waste.  What a complete waste of human life and human potential.  What has religion done to us!
Well, three days later, my brother called me.  He was looking for N250,000 towards funeral cost.  Of course I hung up on him…

By Michael Egbejumi-David

demdem@hotmail.co.uk
Twitter: demdemdem1