I don’t usually post pictures because I’m not a very visual person and I’m definitely not a photographer. But I enjoyed using my Palm Centro phone to take pictures of a few flowers I saw while walking my dog. He’s getting a bit older, so the walk is only about a third of a mile, but here are the pictures I took yesterday.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And sorry, no, I don’t have names for them.
Every so often a KJV-Only advocate comes by this blog to comment. They normally don’t hang around long, but I occasionally feel inclined to respond. I like to tolerate and even celebrate other points of view, but I don’t make an idol of it; it’s one value, not the value. KJV-Only is one of those views I simply cannot respect. It’s too divorced from reality.
This most recent comment was no exception. It resulted from my poll on Bible translation.
There were 5 versions of the Biblical Scriptures/Sources-printed–
Really? Which five were these, and which versions will you exclude from your list?
The One in English from the Textus Receptus(received Text) was the Authorized King James Version-1611-
Well, at least this is approximately correct.
All Others were from the Catholic Codexes/Manuscripts found from 1841 -1881
Well, no, not precisely. In fact, many other versions were translated from the TR or something similar, many manuscripts were discovered outside that time frame, and I have no idea what makes a manuscript “Catholic.” If one uses any definition that doesn’t make practically every manuscript at the time Catholic, then relatively few would be. One wonders whether all manuscripts copied in the eastern church are Catholic or not.
–which were in Philosophical Greek-Not Koine-
No, they were not. They were in the same dialect as the rest.
that were being used as fire-starters in the churches-
This is a falsehood built from a falsehood. The initial one was that Sinaiticus was being used to start fires, which would comment on the stupidity of the person so using it rather than on the value of the manuscript, but even then we can hardly jump to “fire-starters in churches.” But even the fire starting in the monastery is not factual. (See here.)
and Not complete/or Preserved as God Promises- which Add,Subtract, and Change the Word of God
By what standard do you judge completeness and preservation? Is not a manuscript with additions just as corrupt (if that is even the correct word) as one with deletions? In order to determine which is the case, one needs to have some idea of the source text.
And on another note, why can’t KJV-Only advocates punctuate normally and write complete sentences?
/Perverts Doctrines–contrary to the Word of God–From these the American People Seek to make Profit in the Churches like the “Money-Changers” of Old that Jesus chased – out of the Churches ??–
The folks who print KJV Bibles also make a profit.
The 70 Translaters of the King James Bible did Not Hide their Identities like those of the Modernistic Versions-
This is simply false. Many modern translations include lists of the translators. For editions that do not, a little bit of web research will turn up the information.
Many who themselves claimed to be Atheists, Agnostics, and Members of “Cults” ??—
… assuming that atheists, agnostics, and members of cults cannot translate. But the fact is that most of the translators of modern versions belonged to churches that would fall within orthodoxy.
My Great Grandparents readily understood the King James Bible- SO are people today More Stupid or What ??—
The argument about readability, as anyone should be able to tell, is not that people are getting less intelligent, it is that language has changed. Modern English would be similarly difficult for people of a few centuries ago. The reason KJV-Only advocates generally can’t read Greek isn’t that they’re stupid; it’s that they haven’t learned Greek.
The King James Bible IS The Bible–Not Just Another “Version”–or should I say — a “Perversion” ??
On the contrary, the KJV is a version. It is not the original. It is not the best. It’s not extraordinarily inspired. It’s just one translation of a set of texts into a new language.
The sad excuse of “Interpretation(s)”–is Weak at the Best-for those who Reject the Authority of God’s Word in their Lives..
Well, no. Any translation involves interpretation. Any preaching involves interpretation. You can’t get away from it.
I have found that the KJV 1611 Bible woks just fine with those that I witness to in other countries that are 3rd World countries–
I’m sure you imagine that you do. It’s amazing to me how many people can convince themselves they are communicating when they are not.
But these Modern Perversions only Confuses them !!!
I suspect that the problem is that the modern version make them question what you have to say.
– In Cambodia I found that the Mormons(a Cult) even PAYS People to come to Church ??–Further Proof that their “Another Testament of Jesus Christ ” has NO Power in the Word !!!
Of course, use of modern versions is not connected to Mormonism, so this is just a red herring.
And thus we come to the end of another KJV-Only comment. I spent too much time on it, but on occasion it’s fun.
At least so says the Online Christian Colleges blog. I received a notice of the post in e-mail. Usually that’s not a very productive way to get me to blog about something unless you’re someone I know, and more importantly, someone who knows what I like to blog about. So, folks, don’t make a habit of it.
In this case, I almost didn’t bother to look at the post, as lists of things every ____ should read generally drive me nuts, but I did go and look, and there are some rather interesting items but as a list of 50 books every Christian should read, I’d say, “Not so much.”
For example, The Talmud. Should Christians be acquainted with Judaism to some extent? Yes, I would agree. But reading the entire Talmud? Have you tried? It really isn’t a book to be read so much as one to be diligently studied. And no, I haven’t read all or even most of it myself. My interests went the other direction, back to the ancient near east. Now Enuma Elish, the Hymn to Aten, Gilgamesh, and Hammurabi’s code–those everyone should read, and in the original languages. (No, I don’t mean that about the original languages. Just joking.)
What about The Purpose Driven Life, #19 on the list? In this case, I have read it, though I must confess to a “seminary read” of large portions. I really don’t find it profound enough to be on the top 50. If our pastor hadn’t been preaching through it, I would never have bothered.
There are quite a few good suggestions, though I think many will object to particular selections, such as Tillich’s Systematic Theology. I love it, but it is really slow reading for most. I haven’t found that many people who want to hear quotes from it.
In any case, check out the list. What would you add? What would you remove?
I liked this quote:
Bible believers do not believe in the Bible. They accept the message they wish to hear, that God loves those who are rewarded with wealth, but the message of Amos they have little time for. … Be careful before becoming a Bible believer – it is not always a comfortable place to be!
While I do know people who use the label “Bible believer” and really mean it, in my experience the louder one uses that label, the less likely it is to be accurate. (Perhaps the opening verses of Matthew 6 apply here.)
(HT: Exploring Our Matrix)
Allan R. Bevere is making a Christian case for limited government. Scot McKnight has linked to it. Some of the discussion is heated. Fun!
Some time ago I wrote an essay titled A Fruitful Faith, in which I maintained that there is a pattern of grace before law that is consistent throughout scripture, both Old Testament and New. One can also express this idea as call before response, or, as I’ve been thinking today especially, faith before works.
Frequently faith and works are seen as contradictory, and there is, of course, an approach to works that contradicts faith. There is also an idea of faith as abstract belief that divorces it from any form of works. I’m reminded, however, of the reformation formulation “by faith alone, but not by the faith that is alone.”
I found two quotes in my reading on Hebrews today (Hebrews: Ancient Christian commentary on Scripture, New Testament X
[Paul] deemed it necessary to teach first about Christ and the mystery of the incarnation. Only then did he point to things in their lives that needed to be corrected. He wanted them first to know the Lord and then to want to do what he told them. For if you don’t know the one who leads the people in observing god’s commands, you are not very likely to obey them.
I like the way this is expressed. Works done to earn God’s favor or to learn about God are very different from works done because one know and loves God. The former are futile; the latter rewarding.
Again, St. John Chrysostom, On the Epistle to the Hebrews, 22.4, on page 179:
How was it “by faith” that “Enoch was taken up”? Because his pleasing God was the cause of his being taken, and faith the cause of his pleasing God. For if he had not known that he should receive a reward, how could he have pleased God? But “without faith it is impossible to please” God. How? If a person belives that there is a God and a retribution, that person will have the reward. (emphasis mine)
God’s grace, received by faith, is the cause of doing good, and doing good pleases God. But clearly none of that comes from us; it all proceeds from God and comes to us because God has called us.
This is a sort of commercial message, except I’m trying to give some money away. My company, Energion Publications, is sponsoring a contest, and entries are very slow. There are two $50 B&N gift cards on the line, one for the best affirmative and one for the best negative entry in answer to the question:
Was Jesus of Nazareth the Christ (Messiah/anointed one) as claimed in orthodox Christianity?
“Best” will be determined by popular vote, provided we have entries. Right now, we only have one entry for the affirmative, and none at all for the negative. Entries close on Marcy 27, so someone could quite easily claim a $50 gift card with very little competition.
Even if you’re not interested in entering, I’d appreciate any help letting people know. This is a good opportunity especially for some of the smaller blogs.
Again, for details, see Consider Christianity Week contest at Energion.net.
I marked this story a couple of days ago. In my view, merit pay is such an obvious idea, not to mention merit hiring, merit promotion, and lack-of-merit firing, that I don’t see why it would be controversial, except, of course, amongst those who lack merit.
But there is one valid area of controversy–measuring merit. Whatever you tie merit to will be what teachers must strive for. If that’s graduation, you’ll get one result. If that’s success in college, you’ll get another. If it’s standardized tests, then you’re going to get people taught to pass the standardized tests.
But in my view the value of paying people by merit is so important that we need to work through the controversy of how to measure it. That pay should be by merit should be firmly fixed. Then we should find a mix of standards by which to measure such merit.
I’m personally not all that excited about standardized tests, but they do provide something that is less subject to manipulation. With a longer view, one could use measures of success after students leave school.
I must leave one caveat–I don’t trust the school board around here all that much, so I’m not sure that they would be paying for merit. I’m not sure they’d recognize it. Hmmm! Maybe we should do some “lack-of-merit” firing on school boards.
When I get annoyed at the Democrats, which I do frequently, I’m often directed by smiling friends to the Republican party. Obviously you’ve seen the light. We’re the party of freedom.
In case you’re wondering why I don’t buy it, consider the working of the Texas Board of Education. (This is only one small point out of many.) You can get some idea from the live blogging by the Texas Freedom Network. I’m looking for some more complete transcripts, but all I can find are bits and pieces. I’ve read/viewed quite a few of those, but don’t have a single complete link.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Don’t Mess With Textbooks | ||||
|
||||
I’m not interested in liberal or conservative education. Liberals and conservatives both seem to be trying to mold the curriculum to slant things their particular way. (Yes, this is an example of conservatives doing so, but there are some pretty lousy results from more liberal curriculum planning groups as well.)
But the party that harbors and even celebrates people like this won’t be getting my support. That’s why I remain independent as a voter. I can think of nothing better for American politics than that both our current parties collapse.
