Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • He Died for Us – St. John Chrysostom

    From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian church via Hebrews: Ancient Christian commentary on Scripture, New Testament X, commenting on Hebrews 9:15-17.

    How did he become mediator? He brought words from God and brought them to us, conveying what came from the Father and adding his own death.  We had offended; we ought to have died.  He died for us and made us worthy of the covenant.  By this is the covenant secure, in that henceforward it is not made for the unworthy. — ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 16.2

    What I particularly like about this quote is the combination of “bringing the words” with the added death on the cross.  The mission of Jesus Christ was atonement, but that involved more than his death on the cross–not less than or other than, but more than.

    In addition, he clearly states the weakness of the old covenant.  It was human beings who were unable to keep the covenant.  In a sense, we keep the new covenant in Jesus.

  • OneNewsNow on the Conservative Bible Project

    It looks like pretty much the same article I referenced earlier (I didn’t take the time to compare them word by word, but many of the quotes match.

    The only reason I’m referencing this separately is the headline:  The battle for truth in Bible translation.

    Is it possible that anyone thinks the project really is “battling for truth?”

  • Comment Moderation Accidentally Turned On

    I don’t know how it happened, but when I moved my WordPress installation to this server, comment moderation was turned on and the settings reverted to registration required.

    This represents an error on my part (though I’m not sure just what), not a change in policy. Moderation is again off and any user can comment.

  • Notes Elsewhere on Advent 2C

    I have written a couple of articles this week for my Participatory Bible Study Blog that relate to the week’s lectionary passages.

    1)  Translating Philippians 1:9-11 comparing three translations of the passage and discussing the difficulties of getting a clear English rendering

    and

    2) The Mosaic Bible and the Lectionary – Update discussing the use of The Mosaic Bible (NLT) from Tyndale House in connection with the lectionary.

  • Another Honest Creationist

    … and he really is a creationist. His name is Todd C. Wood, he teaches at Bryan College in Dayton Tennessee, and he blogs at the creatively named Todd’s Blog.

    Now for reasons that may have something to do with the college’s name and location, Bryan College often strikes people as an obscurantist sort of place, determined to set education back by a century. My own experience belies that reputation. I was introduced to Bryan College by a Hebrew student who was a Presbyterian Church in America youth pastor. He needed a year of Hebrew for ordination and took it from me. During that time I also heard the president of Bryan College speak and explain some of his views on education.

    Through those connections I became aware of Dr. Kurt Wise, author of Faith, Form, and Time (link is to my review), which is the one book on young age creationism I recommend if you are only going to read one on the topic. (Dr. Wise prefers “young age” to “young earth” as he is in fact dealing with the age of the universe.)

    Now my main reason for calling Dr. Wise, and now Dr. Wood “honest creationists” is not how they deal with the scientific evidence, though that is good to see. In fact, I read quite a number of posts by Dr. Wood before linking to this one, because I don’t like to pile on with the “how honest of this poor creationist to say that we’re right” line. At that point it’s like saying “This creationist is a good guy because he sees the evidence for evolution, but stubbornly refuses to believe it.”

    But I believe it’s very much different when we understand just why these men will stand up to what they acknowledge is a large body of evidence. Their epistemology starts elsewhere. They have a higher source of knowledge. They believe that revealed knowledge, as in scripture, has precedence. I may disagree, but it’s nice to have it laid out in plain words.

    The particular point of honesty–and I know there are a number more creationists that will agree here–is that both Dr. Wise and Dr. Wood acknowledge, or better proclaim that their starting point is scripture, and what’s more a particular understanding of it. Quoth Dr. Wood:

    It starts with going back to the most basic convictions about origins that I have. For me, that starts with my convictions about the mode of scriptural inspiration, i.e. verbal, plenary inspiration. I don’t believe that the Bible is merely a human book that contains the word of God. I believe it is the Word of God. I also do not accept the modern and popular doctrine of accommodation, which basicallys says that by putting His revelation into human language, God was forced to use terms that were not precisely accurate. As a result, science takes an active role in interpreting the Scripture, since any part may be accommodated and therefore not literally true.

    Now I profoundly disagree with that, but what I find dishonest in the work of some creationists is that they try to claim that simply doing science, starting from its current state, one can conclude that the universe was created recently (6000 or so years) and quickly. In order to make a political point and get creationism in the public school curriculum, they cut their view off from its foundation.

    Now as I understand it, both Dr. Wise and Dr. Wood maintain that with the proper research and time and effort to produce the necessary body of scientific work, a sound scientific foundation can be made. In his book which I previously mentioned, Dr. Wise makes a point of listing things that need to be researched in order to produce such a theory.

    Now I profoundly disagree with their understanding of scripture and of the relationship of scripture and science. I don’t even see my view as accommodation. I believe scripture does not address science, and that this is because God never intended to address science through scripture. But it’s nice to have that out at a start. That’s what I call being honest.

    Two people can say that they believe the Bible, yet that is really meaningless until we know just what each one believes about the Bible.

    So I’ve added a subscription to Todd’s Blog to my Google reader, and I’m enjoying his posts.

  • Consumer-mas

    A while back I wrote The Real War on Christmas. Now Thomas at Everyday Liturgy has called this stuff what it is–idolatry.

  • Top 3 Weak Consensus Views

    OK, I’m going to get into trouble (perhaps) for linking to the same guy twice in a row, but I starred two of his posts in a row in Google reader, and that’s out of 281 subscriptions, so something must have clicked.

    In any case, Doug Mangum lists three weak consensus positions, Q as the source of Matthew and Luke, the association of Khirbet Qumran with the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Chicago Statement as the final word on inerrancy.  Commenters have questioned all three of these, but I think the choices are fairly good.

    I’d probably have put source theory of the Pentateuch (JEDP) on that list. Though I would actually favor some sort of similar scheme with a major revision of the dating, it is hardly one that should be assumed as firm.  I think there is no doubt that each of these 3 (now 4) items should be questioned.  The difficult question is whether they are a consensus at this time, and that depends on just who is said to form the consensus.

    I think even the best consensus should be challenged from time to time, if nothing else to make folks dust off the reasons it became a consensus in the first place.  Then we can examine just how well those reasons hold up.

  • Biblioblog Top 50 Demise (or Not) Bears Good Fruit

    If the demise of the monthly Biblioblog top 50 bears more fruit such as lists like this one from Doug Mangum, it could well be a good thing.  At first I thought we had such a thing from Jim West, even including “pazang” in the rating, but now in the comments he says it’s based on Alexa rankings, just over a six month period.  Let’s face it–subjective is more fun!

  • Professors are Liberal and They Translate the Bible

    Just in case you thought reinventing Jesus was just a liberal project …

    I haven’t said much about the conservative Bible project, mostly because I suspect everyone can guess quite accurately what I think, but this article on Yahoo! News lays out the ideas, such as they are.  I keep thinking this must all be tongue in cheek, but nobody has jumped out and said “boo!” yet.

    HT:  Better Bibles