A Vatican Bible Arthur Dent Update

Posted: July 19, 2017 by datechguy in catholic

Mr Prosser: But, Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months.
Arthur: Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn’t exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them had you? I mean like actually telling anybody or anything.
Mr Prosser: But the plans were on display…
Arthur: On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.
Mr Prosser: That’s the display department.
Arthur: With a torch.
Mr Prosser: The lights had probably gone out.
Arthur: So had the stairs.
Mr Prosser: But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?
Arthur: Yes yes I did. It was on display at the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying beware of the leopard.

The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy

Something odd happened on Tuesday.

I accidentally hit one of my bookmarks to the Vatican Bible that was not working a few days ago and to my surprise the page came up.

Given the disappearance of scripture from the site this caught me completely by surprise.

My first thought was that it was an old cache page so I tried it on my other computer and sure enough the same Psalm page came up.

This threw me off so I wondered if the Vatican decided pulling the bible was a bad idea after all so I headed back to the main vatican page, followed the reference link to scripture but I still got this page:

That was even stranger At this point I went back to the page on the 2nd computer and decided to try to get to the front page of the bible from the Psalm page that worked and this came up:

then I tested the links on the page, they all worked.

Now feeling really confused I went back to the wayback machine and checked to see if their capture had caught scripture as back up but the latest capture still showed this:

Finally I had a thought, instead of accessing the bible through the reference link as normal try a search for the term “Bible” in the search box on the main page.  So that’s what I did, and here is the page that came up

Here’s the weird thing, if you click on the first result, you get the bible front page as if it was never gone.  If you click the 2nd result you get the “local episcopal” page from the reference link.

So the question on the floor is this:  What on earth is going on?  If you are still referring people to the local sites and not providing a link to the Bible, why put sacred scripture back up if you’re going to make it tough to find?

Two logical answers come to mind

A charitable suggestion would be that people realized that even though they wanted people to go to local sites for scripture, every single document on the Vatican site since it went up that had existing links to the former online scripture became dead once it was pulled.  Fixing all those links would be an expensive, time consuming and frankly herculean task. So given the choice between fixing those links or putting scripture back up without a direct link to it they choose the latter.  If I had been their tech advisor that’s certainly the advice I’d have given to fix the problem.

A much less charitable explanation would be that the Vatican didn’t like the blowback from pulling the Bible but didn’t want to link to it, so they put it back up without a direct link to allow a spokesman to say “Of COURSE sacred scripture is available at our site, we just prefer you to use our local sites translation.” or in other words: “Beware of the Leopard!”

Of course it’s also possible that these explanations aren’t mutually exclusive.

Either way I’m happy as it means I don’t have to make changes to the links of my ebook or my regular book, however if you bought  copy thinking was now a collector’s item, you’re out of luck.

And for the sake of the readers I’ll put the link back to the vatican Bible both here and on the blog sans wayback machine so if you want to get to the Bible on the Vatican you can without worrying about fast felines.

Cue Arthur Dent:

Not too long after this post I got a full time job in a warehouse where almost nobody working with me spoke English so I had a lot of time alone so I started listening to the big finish Doctor Who stuff. I finally figured out while I don’t and haven’t watched the new series why should I give up the good stuff (Big Finish) and the old episodes just because the new stuff sucks? So While I still pick up the occasional Big Finish Tom Baker story (because hell it’s Tom Baker & he doesn’t have many years left) I’ve not touched the Jodi Whitaker stuff. As for the Tennant redux stuff? We’ll see

This is a post that was lost when I lost my datechguyblog.com domain retrieved via the Wayback machine and restored to my current blog on the date it was posted. Anything above this message is new commentary from today 3/26/23


Today Doctor Who decided to take the final step in their long sjw path and go full Ghostbusters.

Jodie Whittaker has been announced as Doctor Who’s 13th Time Lord – the first woman to be given the role.
The new Doctor’s identity was revealed in a trailer broadcast at the end of the Wimbledon men’s singles final.
The Broadchurch star succeeds Peter Capaldi, who took over the role in 2013 and leaves in the forthcoming Christmas special.

As you might guess all of the usual suspects are overjoyed, it’s being hailed a breakthrough and there doesn’t seem to be a single voice in dissent.

Well as person who has followed the series religiously and as the only person in history to question a future US president at a press conference wearing a Doctor Who Scarf, let me bluntly say what I suspect a lot of other people would like to say but dare not if they want to ever work for the BBC again.

I dissent.

This is a bad idea, in fact for reasons I’ve already written about it’s a horrible idea not only in the short term but for the entire franchise long term. for the 1st time ever kids can go online and find celebrity nudes of the Doctor, isn’t that special?

I’m not going to reiterate all the various reasons from my old post but I am going a step further.

I not only dissent, but after 41 years I’m done.

It’s not a step I take lightly, this is something that has been special to me for over four decades. It’s a fandom I shared with my sons and celebrated together. All three Doctor Who scarfs I own are gifts from friends or family.

Now I know that since the series came back there has been a bit of a sjw agenda that has been pushed since the 2nd half of the 1st season. As the years have gone by it’s become more and more open but I let it go, first because I was so pleased to see the series back, then because I thought David Tennant was great, then because I thought Matt Smith was the best thing to happen to the series since Tom Baker, then because Peter Capaldi had given the character depth and then because Michelle Gomez was just so good as Missy and she and Capaldi worked so well that you wanted to see what happened next.

The actual reality is that I loved this show and even as it tried to nudge me away or suggest that I and my values were unwelcome I clung to it because of what it meant to me and mine. In a world becoming increasingly hostile it was my last my childhood escape that decades later was still intact.

So why would a female Doctor make the difference? Why would that escape be gone. The answer comes from this remark from the new show runner is why:

Chris Chibnall, New Head Writer and Executive Producer says : “After months of lists, conversations, auditions, recalls, and a lot of secret-keeping, we’re excited to welcome Jodie Whittaker as the Thirteenth Doctor. I always knew I wanted the Thirteenth Doctor to be a woman and we’re thrilled to have secured our number one choice. Her audition for The Doctor simply blew us all away. Jodie is an in-demand, funny, inspiring, super-smart force of nature and will bring loads of wit, strength and warmth to the role. The Thirteenth Doctor is on her way.”

and this from the BBC:

It was always unlikely that the Doctor would continue to be white and male, especially as the BBC has committed itself to greater diversity on its programmes.

Casting the first female Doctor is something many viewers have been calling for. And strong female-led stories have been successful on the big and small screen in recent years, in films ranging from The Hunger Games and Star Wars to Wonder Woman, and in TV series like Game of Thrones.

The BBC will be hoping today’s announcement will not just excite viewers, but will also demonstrate that the time travel show has firmly moved into the 21st century.

Do you see the point here. We’re not making the Doctor a woman because it will improve the dynamic of the series, we’ve not choosing a woman because it will enhance the narrative, it’s not about the younger kids who watch or the 50 year plus history.
We’ve not even choosing Jodie Whitaker (an OK actress) because she was the best thespian for the job. No dammit we’re going to make the Doctor a woman because Chris Chibnall wants the Doctor to be a woman, the BBC wants the Doctor to be a woman (perhaps that’s why Chibnall was chosen) and we’re all going to prove how modern and diverse we are so dammit that’s how it’s going to be!

In other words it’s the SJW agenda being shoved in my face.

Well BBC it’s your show and Mr. Chibnall you’re the boss, and you have the right and authority to do with your show as you see fit.

Me I’m the viewer. I’ve got a limited amount of time and a limited amount of money to invest in my entertainment and in this 21st century world that you are boasting of moving into I have a plethora of entertainment choices to invest my time and money in.

And I choose to no longer invest in the Doctor Who franchise, either the new series or via Big Finish.

My Congratulations Mr. Chibnall, my congratulations BBC, my congratulations Ms. Whitaker, you’ve managed to do what age, marriage, children and all the difficulties of life over four decades have not been able to, you’ve made Doctor Who just another TV show to me and made me no longer be invested in the character of the Doctor.

Now I can see the blowback comming in fact Ms. Whitaker take on the role suggests the form it will take:

What does it feel like to be the first woman Doctor?
It feels completely overwhelming, as a feminist, as a woman, as an actor, as a human, as someone who wants to continually push themselves and challenge themselves, and not be boxed in by what you’re told you can and can’t be. It feels incredible.

7) What do you want to tell the fans?
I want to tell the fans not to be scared by my gender. Because this is a really exciting time, and Doctor Who represents everything that’s exciting about change. The fans have lived through so many changes, and this is only a new, different one, not a fearful one.

Scared? How DARE you suggest that my or anyone else’s objections are based on fear, either of your gender or of change. You are a performer, you make your living giving performances for your customer base the viewer. It is for the customer to choose to stay or go based on their entertainment preferences

And I choose to leave.

Now Mr. Chibnall is a good writer (Boradchurch season 1 & 2 are excellent season 3 so far meh) and Ms. Whitaker is a passable actress so I don’t doubt that there will be some interesting stories, in fact I predict that the first half Ms. Whitaker’s first season will do quite well ratings wise, maybe even well in terms of merchandising, however I suspect by the 2nd season it will be Sylvester McCoy and 1989 all over again, but the BBC will do their best to ignore it because they can’t let the first female doctor fail. They’ll retain quite few of the older viewers and a good part of the cult fan base, but in the end instead of national and international institution that gets kids and their families and hold them for generations, it will become just another BBC Drama.

It’s a shame but hey, it’s not a big deal, after all it’s just a TV show.

Closing thought: How long do you think it’s going to be before assorted sjw groups decide they are aggrieved because the Doctor is a white woman rather than a black man or a black woman or an asian man, or a muslim woman or a transgender woman who defines as a gender yet unknown. Or perhaps Mr Chibnall will have Whitaker’s doctor define herself as a man or something else to keep the SJW crowd happy?

I don’t know and frankly I don’t care, not my problem anymore.

Update: That didn’t take long

New FEMALE Doctor Who Jodie Whittaker NUDE modelling and bath scene from Venus

Just what the series needed a Doctor that boys who aren’t gay could masturbate to.

Meanwhile Colin Baker weighs in

Change my dears and not a moment too soon – she IS the Doctor whether you like it or not!

— Colin Baker (@SawbonesHex) July 16, 2017

I would remind the esteemed Mr. Baker that this is the attitude that led to the show being cancelled the first time, on the plus side, it’s arrogance is completely in character in terms of what the 6th doctor would say.

President Merkin Muffley: Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here! This is the War Room!

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)

I was in the process of writing a blog post about parenthood on the occasion of my oldest son’s birthday and I wanted to finish by quoting St. Paul in scripture so I hit my bookmarks to the psalms as the quickest way to access the bible on the vatican and got this message

My first thought was they finally fixed The Psalm section which was a pain in the neck so I went to my base link on the blog, clicked on the Bible which goes to the index page and got the same thing.

I figured the vatican site might be down but when I clicked on it, it came up normally so I looked for the link to the bible and didn’t see it where it had been before. Looking at the main page I found a reference link which had a page with a link to the Catechism of the Catholic Church , Canon law and some new links I hadn’t seen before including COMPENDIUM OF THE SOCIAL DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH written by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. But at the top of the list was The Bible. So I clicked on the link figured I’d have to update my bookmarks and saw this….

Here is the text if you can’t read the screen shot:

“The Holy Bible is available in almost every language on earth: the Episcopal Conferences take care of the continuous updating of the translations. In order to have access to the latest Bible version, kindly consult the website of your Episcopal Conference. ”

Seriously you’re the vatican and you TOOK THE &(#$(@(% BIBLE OFF YOUR WEB SITE! You actually think it’s more important to carry a 13-year-old document by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace available for visitors than the Bible?

What on earth is going on in Rome?

Closing thought. There is only one thing more frightening to me han the thought that the Bible was removed from the Vatican’s web site without Pope Francis knowledge and approval. The idea that it was.

UPDATE: I decided to see how easy it is to find the bible on the US Conference of Catholic Bishops Website. Fortunately there is a front page link that looks like this:

The first two choices take you the readings from Today’s mass in either English or Spanish, the third choice Books of the bible brings you to both a list and a link to each chapter of each book of the bible (and in terms of Psalms is far superior to the old vatican version which had no link to individual Psalms just to the book that started you on #1 which was a real pain in the neck).

Let’s hope all the other conferences worldwide are just as diligent.

I still think pulling the Bible from the Vatican web site is a horrible idea both in terms of practice and in terms of optics.

Update 2: I guess the 1st printing of my book is now a collector’s item as it contains these words in the introduction that will have to be revised:

As might be expected I will be quoting scripture extensively throughout. All scripture used comes directly from the Vatican Web Site (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_INDEX.HTM) unless otherwise noted, so that if you have access to the internet, you can confirm the quotes you see.

If you are reading an electronic version of the book you will find some hyperlinks embedded to both scripture and some other items.

I guess I’ll have to fix those paragraphs and redirect the links in the electronic version when I get a chance.  I guess you’d better buy the book now while you can.

Update 3:  Can’t help but thinking of Dr. Strangelove

Gentlemen you can’t read the Bible here, this is the Vatican!

Update 4: Added the text of the screen shot

Update 5: Subscriber Richard Shuford reminds me that the internet and more specifically the Wayback Machine is forever and while the July 5th capture showed the bible gone the June 6 2017 capture still has the main page but I’m linking the Jan 31st 2017 version which has all the pages there available and readable.

Perhaps I should provide a permanent link but the real story is this.

For at least 11 days the Bible has been gone from the vatican web site. This is a newsworthy story and yet I’ve seen no reporting on this other than mine. That means not a single member of the press in the world has attempted to access the bible online there in that time.

I’d like to say that’s a surprise, but that would be a lie.

Update 7: Scripture is back at the Vatican site but Beware of the Leopard!

You might have missed these two stories in all the Trump Tweet stuff but you might want to remind yourself what we’re fighting against before you jump off the wagon.

Cause:

Seattle’s minimum-wage law is boosting wages for a range of low-paid workers, but the law is causing those workers as a group to lose hours, and it’s also costing jobs, according to the latest study on the measure passed by the City Council in 2014.

The report, by members of the University of Washington team studying the law’s impacts for the city of Seattle, is being published Monday as a working paper by a nonprofit think tank, the National Bureau of Economic Research.

That law raises Seattle’s minimum wage gradually until it reaches $15 for all by 2021.

Well in the face of that bad news Seattle decided that there could be only one effect

When a University of Washington study came out this week showing Seattle’s minimum wage has cost 5,000 jobs and is hurting low income workers, city leaders attacked the messenger –- a team of respected economists at Washington’s premiere public university.

The researchers, led by Jacob Vigdor, were hired by the city in 2014 to study the effects of Seattle’s $15 wage experiment. The contract called for five years of research. City officials stopped funding the UW team when they didn’t like the results.

“The moment we saw it was based on flawed methodology and was going to be unreliable, the Vigdor study no longer speaks for City Hall,” said Seattle City Councilwoman Kshama Sawant. 

So they’ve decided to fund a new study, meet the boss professor Michael Reich:

Reich is currently co-chair of the Institute for Research on Labor and Employment. Before earning his PhD in economics from Harvard, Reich was a founding member of the Union for Radical Political Economics (URPE), a group seeking a “human-centered radical alternative to capitalism,” according to its website.

Reich has authored several studies on the effects of raising the minimum wage. They all concluded that increasing the minimum wage only helps low-skilled workers.

And I’m sure that Professor Reich will dutifully produces numbers that the leftists in Seattle will find acceptable but will not actually change the reality on the ground…

…unexpectedly.