Opus 2026-328: A New Step

Why do I spend so much time listening to others talk and debate?  Why do I always seek out books of interest?  It is because I intend to always be a learner and you never know when or how something new will develop.  Sometimes it is totally new and other times it is a reminder of what has slipped your mind.  On occasion it is expressing something you know in a better way.  Listening to the debate between Steve Gregg and James White on Calvinism was the last type.

During the debate White trotted out one of his proof texts, quoted it and said, “So there.”  For most people that would be solid because it said what he said it said.  You would think that would decide the issue.  The problem is that Gregg was able to bring out another passage which was a little longer and those few words changed the whole meaning.

If you are a Bible student and discuss things with people of strong conviction you have run into this.  For instance take the account of Jesus and the gentile woman.

(Mat 15:24 KJV)  But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

My dispensationalist friend is always quoting this because one of his articles of faith is that the message of Jesus was just for the Jews and He only came to the Jews.  Since Jesus was born in Bethlehem, raised in Nazareth and did all of His teaching to Jews that seems to make sense to some people.

For some reason he never quotes the parallel verse in Mark,

(Mar 7:27 KJV)  But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.

Notice that the concept of “first” is inserted.  That means that yes, Jesus came to a Jewish culture but that His message will go beyond that.  Is it significant?  It is if you believe John 3:16 means that Jesus came to the whole world but if you are convinced that He only came to the Jews you don’t want anyone to read the second part.

Steve Gregg used a different example but his point was that when you have two verses that are expressing generally the same basic thought, one of the principles of hermeneutics, or interpretation, is that the extra is a deeper explanation of the shorter passage.  You can’t just ignore one and only teach the other.

You will find many places where the different gospels or prophets express things differently.  Your job as a believer with your brain connected is to put them together in a meaningful and consistent way.  It is not to ignore the one that doesn’t fit your system.

homo unius libri

Opus 2025-302: Who not How

Days are not the issue.

As I was sitting and meditating on chapter 1 in Genesis the issue of creation versus evolution has a way of always creeping in.  In this case, my thoughts went to the real issue.

Young earth creationists get all hot under the collar when someone challenges the idea that God created the world in six 24 hour days.  In doing so they miss the whole point of the controversy.  The key difference between evolutionist and creationists is not the time involved but the cause.

I submit that if in someway the entire six days of creation were removed from the Bible, and we just went from verse two down to man being created in God’s image, we would lose nothing of significance as far as Christian theology goes, and the big gap between us and the evolutionist would still be there.

The difference is not the steps, the methods, the theories, the order of creation or anything else in those verses.  The controversy is in verse one where we claim God did it and they say there is no God.

I would suggest that you stop wasting your time arguing about whether it’s six days or 16 billion years.  The difference is not between six and however many days that would be.  The difference is between one or none.  The Gap between those is bigger than any gap that could be established within the realms of time and space.

Relax.  God created the universe.  God inspired the Bible.  Good science and good theology will always go together.  If there are bumps then buckle your seat belt and keep going.  You have nothing to fear.

homo unius libri

Opus 2022-133: A Good Resource

I have been listening to William Lane Craig off and on for over ten years.  When I used to walk and listen to my I-pod I was able to put in a lot of time with his wisdom.  His website it called Reasonable Faith.  If you have never heard of him you might find his approach valuable.  He is one of those guys with multiple Ph.D.’s and is well versed in both science and theology.

One of his talks called “Does Modern Cosmology Prove the Existence of God?” popped up on my I-pad and I stopped to listen.  One of the reasons I like listening to people like Craig is that they know what they are talking about and they also know what the opposition is talking about.  That is a great combination.  On this podcast they were reviewing an article by a scientist whom I assume is well known and they were able to point out that the arguments he was putting forth had been refuted for years and yet he was acting like he was cutting edge.

This is why we need people like William Lane Craig.  It is easy for us laymen to get snowed by terms like quantum physics and not know what they are talking about.  Craig just smiles and goes on to quote the experts in the field.

Take a few moments and see what he has to say.  

homo unius libri

Opus 2016-84: The Humor of Being a Stranger

I don’t know when it was posted on Hope and Change.  I enjoy the cartoons but I have also gotten into reading the blurbs below.  The one with this cartoon struck me as significant to me as a Christian.  Jarlsberg wrote,

“ And although the electorate is clamoring for "outsiders" in this political cycle, we feel like we're the real outsiders because we can't even identify with most Earthlings anymore.  And not just when it comes to politics, but also cultures, communication, and commonality of purpose. Not just in our own wounded United States, but throughout the world.”

This should describe Christians.  I know it is how I feel when I drive among crazy people or listen to the leadership at our school.  I seem to be surrounded by people with totally different ideas.  I would say ideas of right and wrong but they reject those labels.

Then he quotes the Bible

“Maybe we're just having a bad day. But we feel like strangers in a strange land and, ...

I know that most people think this was the creative writing of Robert Heilein but like many authors he was just borrowing a phrase from the Bible.

(Exodus 2:22 KJV)  And she bare him a son, and he called his name Gershom: for he said, I have been a stranger in a strange land.

We see the thought repeated in the New Testament.

(Hebrews 11:13 KJV)  These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

I have not picked up that Hope and Change is written by someone who is serious about being a Christian.  I can still enjoy his humor and his insights.

We, as followers of Jesus, are aliens.  We are strangers.  We are out of place.  It has always been that way.  It will always be that way.  I don’t like it.  I don’t enjoy it.  I accept it.  I am afraid I don’t identify with Earthlings any more, but then I never did.

homo unius libri

Opus 2015-118: Monday Pulpit: Both And

One of the points the pastor made on Sunday was that Jesus demands to be both Savior and Lord.  She (yes, she) pointed out how many people are quite happy to accept the forgiveness of God which is possible because Jesus died on the cross for our sins.  They are on board for that one.  The problem is that when it comes to the daily matter of obedience they yell, “Foul!”  They did not sign up for a life change, just fire insurance.

It doesn’t work that way.

The clear teaching of scripture is that you can’t have one without the other.  Unfortunately there are many people claiming to be Christians who refuse to act like one.  I see this on a regular basis at school.  I run into a fair number of children who will loudly proclaim that they went to church on Sunday and say blasphemous things about Jesus and the Holy Spirit.  I could live with that and not call their statements blasphemy if the next sentence didn’t contain vulgarity and profanity.  I could accept they were Christians if their life was not an open demonstration of defiance and lack of self control. 

Just because a toadstool calls itself a mushroom doesn’t mean it is edible. 

In most areas of behavior I don’t know how to evaluate the actions of followers of other religions.  I don’t know their beliefs well enough to know what is acceptable and what isn’t.  I think I do, but I concede I could be wrong.  But I do know what a Christian is.

They ain’t it.  A Christian doesn’t act that way.

homo unius libri

Opus 2013-210: Why So Many Bibles?, part 3 of 3, Philosophy of Translation

Another difference would be the philosophy of translation.  If you have ever needed to work with people who speak a different language you understand that translation or interpretation is an art more than a science.  Words have nuances.  Phrases carry baggage.  There are always judgement calls in trying to get to the best.

One philosophy is word for word.  In this technique you assume that each word has specific value and you want the translation to be as close to the Hebrew and Greek as possible.  It is a very literal translation.  The problem is that it is sometimes stiff.  It can be hard to understand in a culture different than the original.  Well known examples of the would be the King James Version (KJV), New King James Version (NKJ), New American Standard Bible (NASB), English Standard Version (ESV), and Revised Standard Version (RSV).

Another method is called dynamic equivalent.  In this approach you might take phrases or sentences, even paragraphs, and try to put them into modern terms that would carry the same general meaning as the original.  When compared to a word for word translation you might wonder if you are reading the same verse.  If you have ever tried to follow in the NASB when the NIV or NLT is being read you wonder is you are on the wrong page.  The translators believe that they are getting at the meaning and making it easier to understand.  Popular examples of this would be the New International Version (NIV), New Living Translation (NLT), Contemporary English Version (CEV)

Some people try for a paraphrase.  This is a dynamic equivalent approach on steroids.  Great freedom can be taken to try to make the text understandable.  It is designed for new Bible readers or young people.  Examples would be the original Living Bible (LB), J.B. Phillips, or The Message.

In extreme cases of you can get almost silly in translation.  Years ago there was something called the Cotton Patch version.  It called Peter, “Rock,” and had Jesus traveling from Atlanta to Savannah and such.  It was fun and tongue in cheek.  I am sure there have been others like it.

Which is best for you?  I tend to like the NASB.  The pastor of my church uses the NLT in the service but studies from many translations.  Although I have strong feelings I honestly think that the best thing is to get a translation and start reading.  The Holy Spirit inspired it.  He can help you find the truth you need.

I hope this helps.

homo unius libri

Opus 2013-207: Why So Many Bibles?, part 2 of 3, Best Original Sources

One of the big controversies in Bible translation involves the Greek and Hebrew texts.  There are two large compilations.  What is the difference?  Simply put, one group has more manuscripts, the other older manuscripts.  Advocates of the first group have a kind of “majority rules” attitude.  In fact they call it the Majority Text.  The second group feels that the older the document, the closer to the original, thus the more accurate.

People who go with the greatest number say that the oldest manuscripts all come from Egypt, an area full of heresy and compromise.  They say that if it is wrong, it doesn’t matter how old it is, it is still wrong

The non-scholar needs to understand we are not talking about major, faith breaking, theology changing differences.  We are talking about spelling differences, a different ending to the Gospel of Mark, verses left out of some manuscripts.  They are small differences but if this is the Word of God, you want accuracy.  Christians believe that the original documents were infallible but we can’t seem to agree on what the first copies said.  This is the goal of both sides of the argument.  The disagreement is on method and priority not ultimate goal.

I tend to come down on the side of the oldest manuscripts.  I am not impressed by the number of copies.  A good illustration that modern techies might understand is the memes that appear on the internet.  You hear some great rumors.  If you Google it you might come up with a million hits.  If you know nothing about the internet you might be impressed but if you do a little work you will find that they all go back to one blog that made the whole thing up.  Many copies of an inaccurate original does not make for accuracy.

So I will go with the oldest.  They had less time to be changed.  I think they are the most accurate.

To be continued...

homo unius libri

Opus 2013-193: Better with Time?, part 4 of 4, Jesus

Jesus led me in the other direction.  The more I learned the more sense it made.  Contradictions became complementary details.   It appealed to my knowledge of history, my sense of logic and my ability to reason.  The more I knew, the better it held together.

I read books like Josh McDowell’s Evidence that Demands a Verdict and saw solid evidence that made the claims of orthodox Christianity consistent with what I knew about the world.  I read Fingerprint of God by Hugh Ross who is trained as a physicist and astronomer. 

I have greatly enjoyed Conflict of Visions by Thomas Sowell.  He presents the two sides of the philosophical debate from a totally secular perspective.  He gives his sources.  His two camps of philosophy are the Constrained and the Unconstrained.  These match up with the Bibles two camps of the world that denies sin and the Bible which deals with sin.

Of course I have read and studied the Bible.  I went to seminary but most of what I have learned has come from my own study and thought.  I believe that a person of good will who is able to think and has an open mind will come down on the side of the Bible.  Obviously others would disagree with me but the more I see, the more I believe.

The journey continues.  My eclectic knowledge grows.  My experiences multiply.  As a result of this journey I have grown on the topics of evolution and Jesus, but in opposite directions.  The more science discovers the weaker the case for evolution becomes.  The case for Jesus gets better with age.

Forward without fear.

homo unius libri

Opus 2012-331, “Inconsistency” in the Bible

As I was reading through the twenty-sixth chapter of Proverbs I was struck by how often Solomon was using the term “fool.”  It didn’t shock me.  I work in public education.  It is a fools paradise full of people who belong there.  The thing that came to my mind was a statement by Jesus,

(Matthew 5:22 KJV)  But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

We have a problem here.  Jesus says don’t call people fool.  Solomon does it repeatedly.  This would seem to qualify as an inconsistency in scripture.

My point today is not to try to work out the inconsistency.  It has been done.  Maybe some other day.

My point today is to say that working seeming inconsistencies out is not compromise or backpedaling.  It is the heart of understanding what the Bible teaches.  There are three places you look to understand the place a verse of scripture has in teaching its truth.  You start with the verse itself.  What does it say and what does it mean?  Then you look at the immediate context.  How does the chapter and book explain what is being said.  Then you look to the total witness of scripture.  What does the whole Bible say? 

Take a simple example.  Look at the segment of the Ten Commandments,

(Exodus 20:13 KJV)  Thou shalt not kill.

That seems simple enough.  It is clear and concise.

But wait a minute.  What about,

(Exodus 21:12 KJV)  He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.

This is the next chapter.  In one chapter we are told not to kill.  In the next we are told to kill.  What gives? 

A little research will show you that the proper word in the Ten Commandments is “murder” not “kill.”  With a little honesty and thought you can work this out to the satisfaction of everyone except those who are against capital punishment.

In the course of doing this you apply a little logic and the ability to think.  In most cases you can work out a solution to the inconsistency that satisfies most people.  There are probably exceptions but I figure the answer is still out there. 

Before you make a big deal of this, consider science and the scientific method.  It is just this attitude which drives the mind of research in the physical world.  A wobble in the planets did not work with the other known facts, leading to the discovery of Pluto.  Einstein struggled for years trying to find solutions to his theories.  Today the physicists still try to work out inconsistent results to data. 

Christians accept logic and reason in both areas.  The pagans and Xians reject it in theology but embrace it in science. 

Who is being inconsistent?

homo unius libri

Opus 2011-244, Christian Cliches: Are We Having Fun Yet? Then Stop.

Every once in awhile I meet someone who criticizes Christians because we are so dull.  We can’t have any fun, according to them.  I ran across a quote by C.S. Lewis that responds very well.  If you are unfamiliar with The Screwtape Letters, keep in mind that it is a senior demon writing to a junior demon.

“He has filled His world with pleasures.  There are things for humans to do all day long without His minding in the least - sleeping, washing, eating, drinking, making love, playing, praying, working.  Everything has to be twisted before it’s any use to us.  We fight under cruel disadvantages.  Nothing is naturally on our side.”  (Emphasis in original)  p. 118

The list Lewis gives us is surprising and short. 

It surprises because it includes things that we might not include as fun.  Washing is fun?  Think about it.  After a long, hard, sweaty day doesn’t a hot shower bring great pleasure?  Think of the joy of making love without having to worry about STD or guilt.  Are you one of those few people who can’t enjoy a Sunday afternoon nap?  Really?

It is short because of all the things that are not listed.  Take any activity that does not involve excess in alcohol, drugs or violence and it is probably something that Christians can do.  And since they won’t be influenced by alcohol or drugs they will actually remember they did it.  Such things as sky diving, skiing, hunting, and hang-gliding come to mind.  I have never done any of them, but they are on that long list of options that are open.

What happens is Satan takes the good things God has given them and twists them.  In Proverbs one of the words used for people who follow evil is crooked.  In fact that is the meaning of perverted. 

So take your choice.  Do you want to have fun and live eternally to talk about it or do you want to spend your time in Hell knowing that all of the stories you hear are lies because you have been there.

Lewis, C.S.  The Screwtape Letters.  Norwalk, Connecticut:  The Easton Press, 2002.

homo unius libri

Opus 2011-59, Gender Neutral

"Gender neutral" is one of the current terms used to justify attacks on the validity of God’s word.  It starts with an assumption.  It assumes that modern ideas of sexual equality are right because they fit our current philosophy and that the Bible is wrong in not accepting that idea.  An even more basic assumption is that of Eve in the Garden, we are wiser than God and He needs us to protect Him from His own folly.

Gender neutral means that when the original Greek says “brothers” or “man” in the generic sense of referring to all human beings, then we need to clean up the translation and make it “brothers and sisters” or “people.”  If you were doing this in a commentary or a sermon there is no problem with that.  It is probably correct in its understanding.  The problem comes when you take a clear word in the Greek or Hebrew and set yourself up to change what it says.  The utter arrogance of that boggles my mind.  So God made a mistake in His editing and you are going to tidy up for Him?

This is not interpretation it is mistranslation.  It is deliberate deception.  There are obviously places where words are hard to translate accurately.  We face this in translating agape as love.  We face it in translating chesed.  I can accept if you choose “mercy” instead of “lovingkindness.”  I understand the difficulty of translation across time and cultures.  We see the same problem in modern languages.  That is not messing with holy scripture, that is seeking truth.

But “gender neutral” isn’t.  What is it?  It is a political and philosophical statement that modern man is more advanced, intelligent and sophisticated than those rubes entangled in barbaric patriarchal society.  Every time you change the meaning of a word for political, social or philosophical reasons you are deliberately turning your back on truth.  I guess another word for it is sin.

Satan gloats.  God weeps.

homo unius libri

Opus 2011-57, Assumptions

Recently I left a comment on a blog dealing with something called a “gender neutral” translation of the Bible.  The host of the blog obviously disagreed with me.  You can check the post and discussion HERE if you like.  The show stopper for me was this statement: 

“this is where an argument would get difficult because don’t have the same assumptions.”

He was right.  We would keep on arguing and get nowhere because we have different assumptions.  If we were in a coffee shop or worked in the same office I would love to continue the discussion, but on the internet it is too frustrating.

What he said was a profound point that we need to consider when we are trying to witness or advocate a point of theology.  More and more, believers have different assumptions from people in the world.  I am not de-Christianizing the guy I was exchanging thoughts with, the discussion was not on that level.  I am thanking him for bringing up a point.  In Idols for Destruction Hebert Schlossberg makes this point.  When we are dealing with professors who reject the Christian point of view or a neighbor who thinks we are nuts, there is a good chance we won’t be able to do anything to change their minds. 

“The evidence is often good and the arguments sound  It is the assumptions we must question.  These are statements that are presumed to be true but are not proven....Assumptions are beliefs; if they were proven they would not be assumptions.  And they are beliefs so taken for granted that it is not deemed necessary to prove them.”  (Emphasis in Original), p. 8

In the book he is talking about people in science or history who are telling the world what to think. 

“Soundly designed experiments, complete data, airtight controls, scrupulous honesty, and rigorous logic yield wrong conclusions when the original assumptions are wrong.” p. 8

I would put it, “You can’t reach the East coast by taking the westbound train.”

One day in our history department meeting we ran out of official topics and were discussing our differences.  I am an evangelical, one was a devout Catholic and the third teacher was a non-religious socialist from the Middle East.  We have some great discussions on very real disagreements.  What was amazing was that we finally got down to assumptions.  The socialist admitted that one source of our conflict came down to our view of human nature.  As Christians, the Catholic and I share the assumption of original sin that corrupts human nature.  As a humanist the socialist believed that man was good and society was to blame.  It was a great moment.  No one changed their views but we reached some real understanding.

What are your assumptions?  Is there a God?  Is that God the God of the Bible?  Does truth exist?  Can we know that truth?  Was Jesus God?  Did He die on a cross and rise again?  The answers to these questions determine the answers to all the rest.

Examine your assumptions.  Are they more in line with a believing Christian or a traditional pagan.  Start by being honest with yourself.

homo unius libri

Opus 2011-48, God Is Dead (again)

There is an open attack on Christianity and Christians in our culture.  Recently I was at the library and there was an announcement they would be closed December 23-25 for the “holidays.”  I asked the librarian what holidays those would be.  The only thing she could come up with was Christmas.  It was obvious, yet the word is anathema. 

Take heart if you are a believer.  This is nothing new.  We sometimes think that the battles we fight are new but the pagans have been trying to drive God out of the public square all through history.  I saw this again recently.  I was reading in The Journals of John Wesley and on July 6, 1781 he wrote,

“It is true, the doctrine of a particular Providence...is absolutely out of fashion in England.” 

Then he added,

“...as the majority, even of Britons, to this day, retain some sort of respect for the Bible.”

The intellectuals were trying to drive out the idea of God, or Providence in 18th century vocabulary.  In spite of this there was a general positive feeling toward the Bible.  Does that sound familiar?  Recently I posted that even atheist Richard Dawkins had some good words to say about the KJV. 

Relax and trust.  God has been down this road before even if it is our first time.

homo unius libri

Opus 3, Tweedledum and Tweedledee

Monday I saw an interesting headline on the Drudge Report.  (Drudge Report is a summery of current headlines that link to the articles.  If you have never seen it, check it out here.)  It informed us that Tony Blair and Christopher Hitchens had debated about religion.  Tuesday I checked back and it was no longer linked.  I guess it wasn’t a big hit. (yes, that was a pun)

There are times when I scratch my head and wonder, “Whaaaaaat?”  Christopher Hitchens I can understand.  I have heard him enough to know that he is a professional hater of religion.  To him it is undiluted evil, period.  Okay.  I have also heard him enough to know that his research is not always impeccable, but that is a story for another day.  He is an “expert” in the field.

But Tony Blair?  I have some respect for him as a previous Prime Minister of England, but since when did he become an authority on Christianity?  He is a recent convert to Catholicism.  Fine, that does not disqualify him.  I am one of those Protestants that feels Catholics are Christians.  I find them wrong on many points, but they are followers of Christ.  But this is wrong on two points.  If he is a recent convert then he wasn’t too convinced about what he believed before.  Strike one.  If he is a recent convert he doesn’t know enough about the Catholic church to be and expert.  Strike two. 

I don’t have a third strike, but two should be enough to make the point.  I’m sure it is a great PR stunt, but what could possibly be resolved?  Maybe you should go back to watching Dancing with the Stars.