Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Dan Wallace is Angry

    … about the New York Post “chimp” cartoon. While he and I wouldn’t see eye to eye on many things (though his Greek Grammar beyond the Basics is brilliant!) I particularly appreciate this coming from him.

    I don’t regard printing this cartoon as responsible, but I want to make sure to note that I think newspapers have the right to be irresponsible, just as the rest of us have the right (and one might say duty) to call them on it.

  • The Value and Danger of Forensics

    The value, of course, is that they provide us with more objective views than eyewitness testimony, for example. There’s a bit of a forensics craze running the country with shows like CSI making the idea of forensic evidence popular and fun.

    But such shows tend to distort the picture in various ways. To make an hour’s show, tests must come back more quickly than they would in real life. Again, in real life there would be many more frustrations on a daily basis, and equivocal evidence would be much more common.

    Radley Balko has a story about manufactured evidence (HT: his Agitator blog), and a particularly blatant one. His story comes as the National Academy of Science has released a report (link to press release, report is linked from release on problems with various types of forensic evidence as used in our court system.

    The danger of forensic evidence? It is studied and presented by people, and sometimes people are incompetent or dishonest. The NAS report suggests a number of necessary remedies.

    I would hope that this would not discredit the ideas involved in the mind of the public. Rather, I would hope we would be prepared to support those who do their jobs well, but hold accountable those who don’t.

  • Psalm 50:3 in The Message

    One of my criticisms of The Message is that it tends to blunt the force of many scriptures, making them more palatable than they are.  Now don’t get the idea that I’m a critic of The Message in general.  In fact, I think it makes a great contribution to the literature available for rapid reading and overview.  Many of its expressions are quite beautiful.

    As one might expect, some of those are beautiful–and inaccurate.

    Psalm 50:3 is one such case.  Here it is from The Message:

    Our God makes his entrance, he’s not shy in his coming. Starbursts of fireworks precede him.

    That’s nice, cool, and contemporary.  But is it accurate?  In this case, I think, far from it.  I could debate whether “not being shy” adequatey expresses what the Psalmist means when he says God will not be silent.  But that would be a longer post.

    Let’s just compare to the NRSV:

    Our God comes and does not keep silence, before him is a devouring fire, and a mighty tempest all around him.

    My question is whether “starbursts of fireworks” adequately conveys the “devouring fire” thing.  I don’t think it does.  The idea of fireworks today conveys celebration, joy, excitement, and beauty.  In this case, I think the fire says something both about God’s power and about what he is going to do with it.

    I think this one could be translated in contemporary language but more accurately.  Perhaps it would be less beautiful, but more accurate.

    Take the CEV for example:

    Our God approaches, but not silently; a flaming fire comes first, and a storm surrounds him.

    It lacks some of the zing, but it’s clear and natural contemporary English.  And it’s fairly accurate.

  • 2 Kings 2:1-12 (Transfiguration B)

    I used this translation as the basis for a devotional today, 2/18/09, for my wife’s devotional list.  Here is the translation with a few additional notes.

    Translation Notes
     

    1This is what happened when YHWH took Elijah in the whirlwind up to heaven.

     

     

    Elijah and Elisha left Gilgal.  2Elijah said to Elisha, “Please stay here, because YHWH has sent me to Bethel.

     

     

     

    But Elisha said, “As YHWH lives, and as you live yourself, I will not leave you.”

    So they went to Bethel.

    3Now the sons of the prophets who were in Bethel went out to Elisha and said to him, “Don’t you know that YHWH is taking your master from above you today?”

    He said, “Yes, I do know that.  Be quiet!”

    4Then Elijah said to Elisha, “Please stay here, because YHWH has sent me to Jericho.”

    But he replied, “As YHWH lives, and as you yourself live, I will not leave you.”

    So they went to Jericho.

    5The sons of the prophets who were in Jericho approached Elisha and said to him, “Don’t you know that YHWH is taking your master from above you today?”

    And he said, “Yes, I do know that.  Be quiet!”

    6Then Elijah said to him, “Please stay here, because YHWH has sent me to the Jordan.”

    But he said, “As YHWH lives and as you live yourself, I will not leave you!”

    So they went on together.

    7Fifty men from the sons of the prophets went and stood at a distance from them, and the two of them stood by the Jordan.

    8Then Elijah took his cloak, folded it, and struck the water, so that the river was split in two, and the two of them crossed on dry ground.

     

    9And as they were crossing, Elijah said to Elisha, “Tell me what you want me to do for you before I’m taken away from you.”

    Elisha answered, “I’d like the double portion of the Spirit that is on you.”

    10He said, “That’s a difficult request!  If you see me when I’m taken from you, it will happen.  If not, it won’t.”

    11So as they were walking along and talking, a fiery chariots and fiery horses came a separated them, and took Elijah up in the whirlwind to heaven.

     

     

    12Elisha was watching and he shouted, “My father!  My father!  The chariot of Israel and its horsemen!”  And he never saw Elijah again.  He grabbed his clothing and tore it in two.

     

    The word “whirlwind” is the same word used for the storm that brings the presence of God in Ezekiel’s vision, Ezekiel 1.  In that vision, Ezekiel is reassured of God’s activity even in Babylon.  Here the storm shows God in action.  See my essay Ezekiel 1:  A Glimpse of the Glory of Yahweh.

     

    Note that they are descending toward the Jordan River.  I’ve chosen not to translate “descend” specifically, because I’m not sure that the fact of descent is a substantial part of the story.

    Please – the Hebrew text gives a sense of urging which is probably more forceful that a polite “please” but less so than a direct order.

    I read Elisha’s refusal as much more forceful than Elijah’s request or command.

     

    I find it interesting that many Christians, particularly in charismatic and pentecostal communities seek information as though it will tell them what to do.  Here the prophets offer information, but Elisha refuses it. He already knows what he is supposed to do!

     

     

     

     

     

     

     From above you – reflects the Hebrew idiom.  I think it is probably adequately reflected in the word “master.”  Not only is Elijah losing a friend and a colleague, if he even would have thought in such terms, but his leader, his reason for existence and ministry.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     50 men stand apart and see a miracle; only Elisha goes and becomes part of the miracle.

     

     This event reflects in some of its language both he crossing of the Jordan into the promised land and the parting of the Sea of Reeds.  This is God’s indication of how thoroughly his power works in Elijah.  This is a significant point when Elisha asks for the heir’s double portion.

     I’m not sure how significant it is that this starts while they were crossing.  Until today, I had always pictured the scene with the fiery chariot(s) on the other side of the Jordan.  It may be that the whole thing occurs during the crossing.

    The heir’s portion.  Some think Elisha is asking to be twice as powerful as Elijah.  Rather, he is asking to be the heir to Elijah’s power and call.

    It’s a difficult request, and I think the specific difficulty is that it requires something of Elisha–he must be present and be aware of God’s presence when God acts.

    You’d think this would be impossible to miss, but apparently here, as elsewhere, God’s presence is missed by some and seen by others.  Elisha doesn’t miss it, and becomes heir.

    I use “to heaven” even though one could translate “into the sky” because there is an extended sense that one is going away from the place where people live and to the place where the gods live.

    Even though he knows it’s coming, and knows it is what must happen, he still grieves for the departure of teacher, master, and friend.

     

  • Obama Administration Opposes Fairness Doctrine

    … or so a spokesman told Fox News (HT: Taegan Goddard’s Political Wire). This is good news considering the number of people who are inclined to revive it. (The Fox News report even includes the claim that Congressman Henry Waxman is interested in an internet fairness doctrine, for which idea he is being quite justifiably ridiculed. But then the story is by Fox News reporting on an American Spectator story, so …)

    I belive the fairness doctrine is an obvious infringement of free speech and liberals should be embarrassed to support such an idea while claiming to be in favor of civil liberties.

    (Personal note: Blame two book deadlines and a few days of flu for the low level of posting here for the last week or so.)

  • Christian Carnival CCLXIV Posted

    … at Thoughts and Confessions of a Girl Who Loves Jesus.

  • Christian Carnival CCLXIV Posted

    … at Thoughts from a Girl Who Loves Jesus.  I have also updated the archive.

  • Bible in Literature Quiz

    Literary allusions.  Quiz is here.  HT:  Alan Mann.  I made 10/10, but a comment in the HT post may have helped.  On the other hand, I haven’t read half of the literary works referenced–just the Biblical side!

  • Rachel Maddow Identifies the Religious Right

    I was watching Rachel Maddow last night and she commented on the “rejection of religious right” candidates during the last election and gave examples: Alan Keyes and Mike Huckabee.

    Now there are a couple of problems with this, some of which could be identified by right wing opponents of Mike Huckabee who don’t think he’s far enough right. This ignores great differences in temperament, considering that Alan Keyes has been involved in trying to challenge President Obama’s eligibility for the office, while Huckabee, well, hasn’t. That’s a substantial difference in my book.

    Now I’m sure my right wing friends are right with me thus far, though they may think I should skip watching Rachel Maddow. They’ll generally agree that the left tends to group quite a variety of people under the term “religious right” until the term tends to become meaningless. For example, many people from left of center regard George W. Bush as part of the religious right. Just down the road from me is Crossroads Baptist Church, home of Chuck Baldwin, who thinks Bush is left wing.

    But this is not really a problem of left, right, or any other specific position. It’s a problem of distinction that we all tend to have when someone’s positions are far from our own. It’s easier in this day and age of sound bites and short messages to group people quite broadly.

    But it happens in the other direction as well. I’d particularly like to look at the words “socialist” and “socialism.” As used in the campaign, they got pretty amusing. John McCain and Barack Obama were proposing tax plans that were only marginally different, and that were both redistributive in nature. Our tax system is thoroughly tied up with redistribution and even when we do tax cuts they often end up like spending because of the way we do them. Now “from each according to his ability; to each according to his need” is certainly an element of socialism. But the difference between Obama and McCain on taxation was not between socialism and capitalism; it was between different mixes of the two.

    So why not call all socialists, well, socialists? In my view, because it devalues the term. If “religious right” applies to everyone who is both religious and right of center, then I’m probably a member of the religious right, even if only by a small margin. Yet there’s a large amount of real estate between my position and Huckabee’s, and in turn between Huckabee’s and Keyes’. Similarly, you will note attacks on President Obama’s policies from both left and right. That’s because there’s a substantial difference between his positions and many of those held by various liberal and progressive groups.

    When a politician wants to make a point, he or she will try to generalize a label and place someone in as unfavorable a light as quickly as possible. If I were running in an election against an opponent to my left, I might well be labeled part of the “religious right.” In that way my opponent could reap the votes of those who are frightened by Alan Keyes. It would be politically expedient under current circumstances, but not accurate. (Of course, there are many reasons, much better ones, not to vote me into office, and you won’t see me as a candidate, not even if hell freezes over.)

    The only solution I see is for us to demand better as citizens and take the time, at a minimum, to look at a list of issues and see with some precision where a candidate stands. And while I am reconciled to the fact that politicians will try to oversimplify an opponent’s position in order to gain advantage, I’m less pleased with commentators who do so. I’m not a fan of media neutrality; I am a fan of media depth.

    On those rare occasions when I can find it, that is.

  • John Hobbins Leaves Complegalitarian

    Please don’t take the title here as some sort of rejoicing from either side. John gives his reasons here in a very thoughtful post.

    There are two reasons I want to respond with a full post. First, his reasons are worth reading and considering, even though ultimately I will continue to fall afoul of some of his guidelines and suggestions. Second, I think there’s a good point here about conversation in the blogosphere.

    I was never involved with Complegalitarian, and I was only an occasional reader, even though I count some of the authors as friends. The reason is simple: I don’t have the slightest pretense of being neutral on this issue, nor is there even a whiff of the irenic in my expression. If you found some it was either an accident or perhaps I had a cold that day.

    If you’re wondering how I can claim to be a moderate (remember also passionate!) in this case I would simply point out that I have never claimed to be centrist, but rather that I consider all variations. Occasionally, as in this case, I come out fairly far to an extreme. Note, however, that if your view of the egalitarian extreme is that women and men are somehow not different from one another, then that is not my view. I merely believe that each should be permitted and encouraged to do what he or she is gifted to do, whatever that is, whether it’s pastor, fighter pilot, homemaker, nurturer, or gardener. I do not believe that there will be parity between men and women in each of those groups–I simply won’t prejudice the possibilities.

    But that is not my topic. My concern is the idea of the neutral forum. I think it is a potentially dangerous idea. News outlets, for example, are all prejudiced. This would be fine if we could identify the prejudice and account for it. It becomes dangerous when we try to pretend there is no prejudice.

    My suggestion for the best way in which to conduct such a discussion would be via a multi-blog conversation. One could even set up a tag in Google Reader or some other such service that would aggregate all the blogs that wanted to be part of the conversation. Then everyone could express themselves as they saw fit on their own blogs, but be linked in as part of a conversation. In many ways the comment system on blogs tends to keep us in the past, treating our blogs as one of the old internet forums.

    In the good old days–and I’ve been at this since 1985 when I operated the Wind Dragon Inn bulletin board in Bellevue, NE–you joined a particular board or forum and all conversation went on there. Since my first bulletin board cost me around $2,000 to set up, it was unlikely that most of my readers/commenters were going to set up their own in competition. So they all had to call my number and follow my rules.

    Now anyone can create a blog for free, and the software permits all of the wonders of a forum to develop around it. Thus we can all comment as we desire, which is one of the reasons I generally post on my own blogs.

    Comment moderation, as necessary as it is, is very hard to do in a balanced fashion. I tend to let just about anything by, but those who are sensitive to attacks might feel that this is not a safe place to discuss. They’re right. It isn’t. If you’re even slightly inclined to get offended, you’ll probably find that I allow a comment that offends you.

    On the other hand, stricter comment policies often tie people down from expressing what they think is simply the truth. Complementarians that I know in real life really do believe I’ve taken leave of my senses and started ignoring scripture because I’m an egalitarian. These are people with whom I remain friends. I’ve always been amazed at what will anger people online, because I’ve generally heard worse in person. I think we tend not to attach a real live person with whom we already have a relationship to the comments, and thus only the hurtful part remains, unimpeded by any human considerations.

    In summary, I don’t think it’s possible to create a single blog or single forum as a truly neutral solution. When we trim people’s expression in order to produce dialogue, we often lose the expression of the very issues under discussion. The blogosphere gives us an opportunity to break that logjam.

    One final note–I really don’t like extended conversations in comments. I prefer exchanges of blog posts. I’ll do extended discussions when they’re interesting, but I always think that more than a couple of paragraphs at a time would be better served in separate posts.