Tony Breeden has taken Joel Watts to task over his understanding of Genesis and origins. As if frequently the case with such discussions, Breeden has mistaken his own interpretation for “what the Bible actually says.” It’s “disagree with me, deny the Bible.” Joel responds rather well, I think, using some excellent scriptures.
I suggest that we need to derive our doctrine of inspiration more from observing it in action, as we can in Scripture, and less by trying to apply particular proof texts.
I’m glad to see this, though I do disagree with a few points.
First, I don’t agree that using a formal equivalence translation means you are closer to the original. You are closer in some ways–reflecting the words and structure of the original language–yet you are often further in other ways, including reflecting the thought.
Second “word for word” is not the best way to describe formal equivalence. I prefer “form for form” but even that misses it just a bit. In formal equivalence translators attempt to approach the words and structure of the source language as much as is possible in the receptor language.
Third, I would not use “sentence for sentence” as a description of dynamic (or functional) equivalence. It’s somewhat difficult to define the term “word” in a way that is transferable between languages. Similarly, sentences may change. Even in formal equivalence, one Greek sentence might be translated by multiple English sentences, for example. I would say “thought for thought” would be closer to the truth.
Nonetheless, I think this is generally a helpful and balanced presentation.
I wrote a blog post some time back with an outline I made from Psalm 51, along with links to a pamphlet that discusses repentance.
The whole passage (2 Cor. 5:20b-6:10) is great, but I’m just going to link to a few notes I’ve written on the key verse in 2 Corinthians 5:21.
The way you understand the phrase “righteousness of God” will color much of the rest of your understanding of Paul, I think.
This is just a very short note with a link. I’d like to tie the repentance described in Psalm 32 to Leviticus 6 (5 in Hebrew). I wrote about that previously on my Participatory Bible Study Blog. This passage describes the priestly doctrine of repentance.
In my recent reading from the book of Job I came across the following from Zophar. I’ll quote just a bit:
“Shouldn’t the multitude of words be answered?
Should a man full of talk be justified?
Should your boastings make men hold their peace?
When you mock, shall no man make you ashamed?
For you say, ‘My doctrine is pure.
I am clean in your eyes.’
But oh that God would speak,
and open his lips against you,
that he would show you the secrets of wisdom!
For true wisdom has two sides.
Know therefore that God exacts of you less than your iniquity deserves.
(Job 11:1-6, WEB)
I once preached a sermon in which I labeled the three friends of Job with modern denominational labels. I didn’t do this because I had tagged a particular one of them with denominational characteristics. In fact, I can’t remember what label I put on each. What I was trying to illustrate is that Job’s friends have their disciples in our modern churches.
Have you ever had an argument, or to be kind, a ‘vigorous discussion’ with someone, only to have it conclude with your opponent saying something like “I’ll pray for you!” By the tone, you know they won’t be praying for your health. What they’ll be praying for is that God will straighten you out. Now I don’t mind having someone pray for me, and I’m sure God can handle whatever they ask, but often the underlying meaning of that phrase is something quite different. To go to the title of this post, what you’re being told is that you’re so wrong (and so stubborn) that only divine intervention will suffice to set you straight.
Notice how Zophar first assures Job that he doesn’t understand, then wishes God would explain things to Job, but in the final line of the quote, he says “But know this …” Zophar is sure Job doesn’t understand, but he, Zophar, has it straight. If you continue reading the chapter, Zophar brings up many things that Job doesn’t understand. The implication behind the speech, however, is that Zophar does.
When Job responds, he says:
“No doubt, but you are the people,
and wisdom shall die with you.
But I have understanding as well as you;
I am not inferior to you.
Yes, who doesn’t know such things as these?” (Job 12:2-3, WEB)
It’s possible for an appeal to God or an appeal to prayer to be an act of humility. You’ll probably know by the tone. But generally such calls come from someone who is so sure he or she is deep in the counsels of God and doesn’t need instruction. But you do.
As you’re thinking about that, however, consider how many debates you’ve been in, in which you were the one with a tame god on a leash, ready to be sic’d on your opponent. Then try Job 38:2 on for size:
Who is this who darkens counsel
by words without knowledge?
A member of my Sunday School class gave me a Latin grammar and dictionary. Is this a sign from God that I should revive my Latin?
… is not really my business. I recall one of my college professors who said that it was very liberating for him when he realized that it was not his responsibility to figure out who was going to be saved and who wasn’t. That’s basically my position. I tend to apply 1 Corinthians 2:9 (eye has not seen, etc) to the other side as well. We don’t really know. I suspect that when we do know what God has done, we will understand that to be just.
But raising the questions is a good thing, in my view. I’m not going to comment on Rob Bell’s forthcoming book which I haven’t seen. I just don’t find the advertising for it offensive. If you can’t discuss the questions it raising openly and reasonably, it’s time to learn.
I want to link to two friends who have made intelligent and challenging comments on this issue, Bob Cornwall and Allan Bevere. Both are thoughtful and challenging.
I’ll also link to a story I wrote that I hope challenges some thinking about hell, Hell Fire and Damnation. Yes, I’m using a popular story to plug something I wrote. 🙂
… like $20, according to this story.
Now the story brings up interesting issues of profiling, and whether toll station workers were legally permitted to detain anyone. I think those are good questions. The Florida DOT’s coverup should also be investigated.
But here’s something that got me:
Although FDOT refused to comment because the Department expects to be sued, internal e-mail justify the program because of counterfeit bills. However, in a 2 and a half year period the DOT got $16,000 in counterfeit bills, while at the same time it collected close to $2 billion in tolls ($1,523,825,404).
The Department also spent $32,000 on forms used to catch the $16,000 in funny money. The department also says in e-mails, the program will help law enforcement catch counterfeiters.
Irrespective of all the very valid legal issues, as a businessman, I would say this should raise red flags. A program that spends $32,000 to prevent $16,000 in losses is not very profitable. Of course, it will be less profitable if FDOT loses the lawsuit.
A very funny clip from The Daily Show:
I would normally have a serious problem with comparing the two situations, with Wall Street execs paid by private organizations while teachers are paid by the state, but the waters are muddied by the bailout. Under normal circumstances, I’d support people getting whatever pay is determined by the market.
But what the market determined was that some major financial firms ought to fail. There’s a caveat in that one as well. What role did ineffective or even harmful regulation have on that situation.
But all these caveats ruin the humor.
