Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Is it Necessary to Know the Biblical Languages?

    I previously answered this question for myself here, but there’s a good and gracious answer today from Brian Fulthorp.

    I would repeatedly emphasize that there are many advantages to knowing Biblical languages.  There are some areas and methods of study that really are closed to you if you don’t know the languages.  Having said that, we have such wonderful tools for study in English that you do have many ways in which you can study seriously without learning the source languages.

  • The Biblical Basis for Mission

    Eddie Arthur has a fascinating post on language development and mission, particularly relating this question to the language development work of Wycliffe Bible Translators.

    I was particularly struck by this paragraph:

    An alternative way to view mission is to start with the character and activity of God as revealed across the whole of the Scriptural narrative. The whole story of Scripture pictures a God who reaches out to humanity in creation, through his relationship with the people of Israel, through the incarnation of the Son, His death and resurrection, the sending of the Spirit and the eventual winding up of all things at the end of time. Our mission is a response to God reaching out to us: … [a quote follows in the source post]

    I think this is a wonderful way to think of the Biblical basis for any activity.  We can certainly use specific texts and commands, but we will get a much better idea of what God calls us to do if we set such commands in the full story of the Bible, i.e. of God’s interaction with humanity.

    Read the full post.  It’s really worthwhile.

  • More on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

    … at Evangelical Textual Criticism.  (See also Dr. Platypus.)

  • Managing Evidence for Evolution

    I think that nearly everyone who has debated issues about creation and evolution has been disturbed by the breadth of the topic. Sometimes you provide evidence X, only to have someone point out that what you just presented doesn’t prove Y, not to mention Z. The theory of evolution is many-faceted and really incorporates many theories.

    I’ve been really appreciating the Biologos Foundations Science and the Sacred blog. Today they’re starting to post on managing the evidence. I’m going to be following this series with interest.

  • David Ker is Bored

    Well, at least he’s finding the blogosphere boring. He finds that there are only two interesting Christian bloggers left, James McGrath and Eddie Arthur. What’s interesting is that, while I don’t seem to generally agree with David as to what is interesting, I agree with him that those two bloggers are very interesting. I read everything they write, except for the stuff James writes about LOST.

    My purpose here is not to complain about David’s tastes. What interests me is just what people do find interesting. I’m pretty much going to blog what I feel like irrespective of whether it gets read or not. In fact, I’ve found that my most read posts are almost universally ones that I would regard as a sort of filler. On that basis, this post should be popular, because I’m just rambling, though I’ve found things aren’t quite that predictable.

    My own comment levels are down, though my readership has held pretty well. I suspect that has to do with the fact that I’m not blogging about the creation-evolution controversy nearly as frequently as I used to. Looking back, most of my comments were on those posts, followed closely by political ones.

    I have always been surprised as well by what attracts links. It is very rare that a post I have labored over and lovingly read and re-read attracts many links. When I write unedited, dashing something off in the heat of the moment, it attracts much more attention. It also embarrasses me, because I’ll find the link, then look back at the post to discover just what I wrote, and I’ll find numerous errors.

    The most interesting change over the last year, however, has been that this blog is not my primary blog any more, at least by readership. When I split this blog into three based on interests (Threads for general commentary, Participatory Bible Study blog for Bible study notes, often related to classes I’m currently teaching or to books I’m working on, and Jevlir for fun an fiction) I expected that this would be my main blog, I would have a few readers for the Bible study blog, and family and friends, if that, for the fiction blog. The latter is true, well, except that family and friends rarely read Jevlir, but I still have the sort of hit numbers that go with a “family and friends” type blog.

    But Participatory Bible Study has climbed, while this one has remained steady or dropped a bit. The discouraging part of that is that most of the hits over there have to do with biblioblogging even though I rarely link to anything about that. One way to generate a bunch of visits is to write something about who is a biblioblogger or about one’s current ranking.

    For a long time Participatory Bible Study wasn’t on the biblioblog list, which was fine by me. In fact, I didn’t think I fit the definition. But when I was added, my rank was fairly respectable (#7, last I checked). But it totally amazes me how many posts are written and links provided just to keep up with who has a higher Alexa ranking.

    OK, so this is rambling, and perhaps blatantly linking into David’s post to generate some traffic, though I think my traffic is adequate to my purposes.

    If you read this far, have fun! I’m amazed!

  • Counting the Independents

    Each election various pundits and politicians seem to be surprised at the way independent voters swing. I think they have a bit of a problem comprehending the word “independent.” I am a bit wary of using “we” when discussing independents, but as an independent voter myself I am generally not that shocked by the swings.

    Following last year’s election I wrote:

    I’ve voted Republican before. I voted Democratic this time, for the most part. I could easily be persuaded to vote Republican again–or for a third party if sufficiently provoked.

    The problem, I think is that politicians and the vast majority of the media think in terms of the two major parties. One either supports the Republican agenda in general, or the Democratic agenda. Thus it is often difficult for them to understand how so many people switch allegiances. Now there are a certain number of folks who are voting on appearance or personality, or perhaps because someone they know votes in a particular way.

    For me, it is almost always a case of holding my nose and voting. It is very rare that there is a politician who really sounds good to me and also has some realistic chance of being elected. So each candidate race is a separate decision. Who do I agree with the most and also on the most critical issues? Is that person a person of integrity so that I can count on them to be who they say they are?

    For whom can one vote if one generally opposes war and also opposes abortion? What does one do if one believes we have a duty, as a society, to aid those less fortunate, but at the same time supports civil liberties and generally light handed regulation? All of these things become individual factors.

    I find that the Democrats are frighteningly trusting of government solutions when it comes to social issues, and frighteningly unconcerned with the track record of existing programs, just as long as those programs seem to support their goals. I find Republicans frighteningly trusting of government in the law enforcement, defense, and intelligence fields, and oblivious to the horrible track record of our agencies in those areas.

    Both parties are very good at spotting the failures of the other, but much less so at looking carefully at themselves. So independents tend to swing back and forth a bit, just trying to find someone, anyone better.

    Now we have this election today in Massachusetts. (Note that I’m in Florida and don’t have a vote today.) There is great shock that the Republican may win. With possible errors in polls, I wouldn’t make that a prediction, but it looks pretty likely to me. In many ways this is because the Democratic candidate is not that good. Even if I agreed with her in general, I would have serious doubts about voting for her due to some of her actions as a prosecutor. (I doubt my misgivings are a driving force in the election, however.)

    The question is just what question Republicans are going to take from this. I know they will crow at such a victory. But whether they get long term benefit from it or not will depend on whether they are listening or not. Many of us out here are quite clear on the message not to trust government too much, but in general, we don’t trust government with any of the power, and we want every aspect of government, including law enforcement and defense, to be accountable. We want all our politicians, not just the ones out of power to be ethical, and we expect the ethical standards to be enforced.

    I have not been very surprised by President Obama. I expected that the idealism would largely die when he got to Washington, DC, and it has. He has been more moderate than his platform, but again I expected that. But being pragmatic, and letting the issues you said were important during the campaign die, are two different things. Many of those who voted for candidate Obama hoped that President Obama’s stance against such things as torture would stand. But now in many cases the Obama White House is defending positions staked out by the Bush administration.

    Some Republicans are claiming this is because Bush was right after all. I disagree. I think it is because of the corrupting power of power. The current administration doesn’t want to investigate torture because it might appear partisan. But let me ask what it looks like when you don’t investigate it?

    I expect to disagree with much of what goes on in the halls of government. I pick and choose my issues when I vote for candidates. What I expect, however, is that a politician will stand up for what he believes. If I voted for him, and I knew I disagreed with some position, I do not give him credit for failing to live up with that position even if he changes it to one closer to my own.

    So my message to Republicans is much what it was to Democrats after 2008–Don’t count on me. You’ve got to earn my next vote.

    I suspect many independents are thinking something very similar.

  • Martin Luther King Day 2010

    Two personal experiences shape my thoughts each day on Martin Luther King day. The first was the memory of those in our small north Georgia community who were gratified that he had died. Few of the young folk had any idea why they should think that way, though we had regularly had “scares” that there would be riots in nearby Chattanooga, Tennessee, not that it was likely such things would touch our heavily segregated community.

    For my parents and our family, the experience was a little bit outside of our experience. We were Canadians transplanted into the American south and so attitudes took turns that we did not expect. My parents were very clear that we were not to make racist remarks, and they challenged racist attitudes on an individual level. I don’t think they really comprehended the extent of institutional racism at the time, as we didn’t discuss the politics in any detail.

    The second experience that shaped my understanding was living in Georgetown, Guyana when I was in my teens. There I learned what it meant to be a minority, when I was the sole white member of my youth group. Now let me be clear that I was treated well by all concerned. I did not experience prejudice in that circumstance, but even without prejudice there is a certain feeling of isolation that goes with being the only person of an identifiable type.

    I was listening today to a commenter on one of the TV programs–I don’t recall which–who said that the laws had changed, but people’s hearts and minds still had a long way to go.

    I think that caller was right, but I should note also that laws may help change hearts and minds, but they are not fully efficient at the task. For example, desegregating education has given many young people experience of other races, which is helpful in changing their future attitudes. But the attitudes still exist.

    During the last election I was getting my hair cut at a local barber shop while early voting was open. The general consensus was that “those people” were busy stealing the election through early voting. It didn’t take long to realize that “those people” were African Americans, not Democrats or Republicans.

    I hope that we will all become much better at seeing ourselves in other people’s circumstances. As Christians, we need to understand how religious minorities feel here in our communities. That might help us become even more sympathetic for Christian minorities overseas. Understanding what it means to be in the minority would, I think, make us better people.

    For me it took a very long time to put it all together, and I can’t guarantee I’ve understood it all even now. But by the grace of God I’ll continue to progress in understanding others not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character (slightly paraphrased from the I Have a Dream speech.)

  • Epiphany 3 in The Mosaic Bible

    While none of the Mosaic Bible texts [Holy Bible: Mosaic NLT (Meditations)] overlapped the lectionary texts for today, I think it was quite appropriate, if coincidental, that the texts chosen deal with dealing with the poor and outcasts.  The texts were Leviticus 19:1-18, Psalm 119:33-40, James 2:1-7, and Luke 6:27-42.  These passages emphasize that our care for others should not be an emergency response, but rather a way of life.

    In addition, all of the readings are excellent, focusing on our attitude and relationship and the things that make up who we are.

    I particularly liked the NLT rendering of a verse from one of my favorite chapters, Psalm 119:

    Give me an eagerness for your laws rather than a love for money! — Psalm 119:36

    Combined with the reading from Leviticus 19:1-18, ending with one of the two commands on which Jesus said all the law and the prophets hung, I found it quite powerful.

  • Biblioblog Rankings Update

    Jeremy at Free Old Testament Audio is continuing tinkering his system for acquiring and displaying the rankings, and thinking about how to decide who belongs on the list.

  • Taking Offense Easier than Logic and Evidence

    Kevin DeYoung makes this claim at the evangel blog. Amongst many good things, he says:

    For starters, being hurt is easier than being right. To prove you’re offended you just have to rustle up moral indignation and tell the world about it. To prove you’re right you actually have to make arguments and use logic and marshal evidence. Why debate theology or politics or economics if you can win your audience by making the other guys look like meanies?

    While I like to avoid giving unnecessary offense, when one must offend in order to speak what one believes is the truth, then it’s time to speak. We truly are an easily offended culture.

    HT: One Eternal Day