Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Horrors! A Plague of Bible Reading!

    . . . or so I might be led to believe by reading Christians Spend Too Much Time Studying the Bible (HT: JakeBouma.com). I don’t know enough about the pastor who wrote this, so I can’t say whether it provides an appropriate balance for his congregation. Perhaps he is plagued with church members whose noses are always in their Bibles causing them to neglect families, jobs, and service to their community.

    But I must say that I haven’t encountered many of the type of Christians to whom he seems to be speaking. Some liberals have a stereotype that sees evangelicals totally involved in doctrinal and Biblical studies, leaving no time for social action or for actually living the gospel. It’s balanced, I think, by those evangelicals who imagine liberals joyfully shedding orthodox doctrines for no better reason than that they don’t like the feel of orthodoxy. Yet I have actually met very few examples of these stereotypes. The overwhelming majority of evangelicals I know are very active living the gospel as they understand it, and most liberals reject doctrines for what seems to them, at least, good reasons.

    This post seems to imagine most Christians as being sort of like the Pharisees, studying doctrines and traditions in great detail, and presumably also tithing their “mint and dill and cumin” so to speak, while “neglecting the weightier matters of the law.” (That’s from Matthew 23:23 for you Biblically illiterate folks!) Perhaps someone could show me a survey or some other type of evidence as to where this is largely the case today. I certainly do believe many Christians neglect their duty to love others, but I fail to see where it happens because they are too busy studying the Bible.

    Perhaps I just haven’t been around enough, but I’d love to find the church that requires an admonition to study their Bibles less. Perhaps I could preach there and I could allude to Bible stories I imagine are well known, and not have to provide a summary.

    Brian Jones, the post author, makes some good points:

    1. There truly were no leather bound New Testaments dropping from the sky immediately after the resurrection.
    2. Christianity truly has prospered in times of limited literacy.
    3. Very few early Christians could have afforded the cost of a complete Bible in times when they had to be transcribed.
    4. It is quite possible to be a good Christian with limited Bible knowledge.

    But I believe that he has failed to truly think through any one of these possibly valid points. Let’s look at them briefly, one at a time.

    1. There truly were no leather bound New Testaments dropping from the sky immediately after the resurrection.

    Does anybody but me see at least one culturally conditioned error here? No, I don’t mean “leather bound.” I’m talking about the idea that one would have to have the Bible collected into one place before one could get busy studying it line by line and verse by verse. We have a prejudice toward collections and large volumes, but smaller manuscripts were common in Biblical times. It didn’t mean people studied less. It meant they studied differently.

    Further, he seems concerned only with the New Testament. While the New Testament canon was not settled for some years, there was considerable stability in the major portions of the Hebrew scriptures at that point, certainly the Torah and the Prophets. That made a considerable amount of Bible available for studying along the way.

    2. Christianity truly has prospered in times of limited literacy.

    I’m reminded of the testimony I heard from a Cambodian pastor. He told how they lived in a refugee camp along the Thai border, and they had only one Bible for thousands of Christians. One leader kept the Bible and they would all have times to go and study with him. Otherwise they worked from memory.

    We have very little tolerance today for long Bible readings, but in a time of limited literacy, public reading was a much more common practice. (By “public” I do not mean to imply large audiences, merely that a literate person would read to a group.)

    The importance that these people placed on the Bible is reflected in how quickly they translated portions of it into new languages as the gospel progressed. Again, they didn’t study less, the studied differently.

    3. Very few early Christians could have afforded the cost of a complete Bible in times when they had to be transcribed.

    Quite true. We should be very thankful that the Bible was preserved through times of such hardship and that it is so accessible today. It is a great blessing. It’s quite possible that one of the reasons we actually study it less is that it is so much more easily available. We would value our Bibles more if someone was trying to burn them all.

    4. It is quite possible to be a good Christian with limited Bible knowledge.

    Just so. It’s also quite possible to become a “good” Christian in the last moments of your life as you are being executed–witness the thief on the cross–but I wouldn’t recommend it if you have any alternative. Just because you can do something doesn’t make it the best thing to do.

    All this doesn’t support the conclusion:

    Most Christians today assume that to be a Christian means to have a personal relationship with the Bible instead of the risen Jesus.

    In this case at least I have met examples of the breed. They quite worship their Bibles, and fail almost completely to find the God of whom the Bible speaks. But they are not as common as the quoted paragraph implies.

    What we need is balance. The Christian life consists of many spiritual disciplines. Studying the Bible is just one of these. Bible study can also be a purely intellectual discipline. It can be practiced for the wrong reasons. But in my experience it is rarely those people who are actually dedicating large amounts of time and effort to Bible study who are actually missing out on the rest of the gospel.

    Most commonly it is those people who talk most about the Bible and study it least who also seem to practice bibliolatry–they worship their Bibles. Not really, you know. What they actually worship is themselves, and the ego stroking they get from those who believe they are studying their Bibles. They don’t have to actually study.

    A plague of Bible reading? Bring it on!

  • Good Theology – Bad Exegesis

    I’ve encountered this a few times, so I was delighted to find this little discussion, courtesy of John Hobbins, whose post on the educational value of reading biblioblogs is also good.  Awilum.com goes on my blogroll.

  • Going Back to the Original

    Sinaiticus, a 4th century manuscript of the New Testament and parts of the LXX Old Testament, will go on display, starting this July with some portions, and available completely by next year (MSNBC.com story).

    The story got me thinking about what it means to go back to “the original.”  KJV-Only advocates will tell you how hard it is to go back to the originals, since we have not one single autograph of any Biblical book, and then suggest the ridiculous conclusion that we should therefore use the KJV as our standard.  This would be analogous to going to a bowl of fruit, and determining that because all the fruit has some spoilage, we might as well take one of the most spoiled pieces.

    Once in a discussion on the <a href=””>Compuserve Religion Forum</a>, someone asked me if I had ever read the Dead Sea Scrolls.  I wasn’t precisely sure what he meant, so I responded that I had read some portions, which is quite true, though I have mostly read them in transcription.  The closest that I’ve gotten to an actual scroll or scroll fragment is a photograph.  What he expected, however, was that I had actually handled the original scroll, done the transcription myself, and then worked from that transcription.  To that I had to say, “No, even with the photographs the only thing I’ve done is to check a letter or two against the photograph, and even there I would leave the final word to the folks who are really experts in that area.”  That was a great disappointment to him.

    In my experience, “going back to the original” can mean looking up a text in your preferred translation, going to the original language in an appropriate critical edition, examining manuscripts, or having in one’s possession the autograph of a work.  For those involved in source and form criticism, it can mean going back to the sources from which the document we have was compiled.

    It is important to remember that we cannot completely eliminate our dependence on someone else’s work.  Whether you use an English translation or examine the individual characters on an ancient manuscript, you do not achieve your result independently of others.

    Nonetheless, going as far back as possible, and checking as carefully as possible is a positive thing, even though we know we will not achieve it perfectly.

  • Science with Pre-Ordained Conclusions

    One problem for creationists has been the lack of publications in peer-reviewed journals. In a typical attempt to bypass reality with labels, Answers in Genesis has duly produced a “peer-reviewed journal,” the Answers Research Journal.

    A major problem, of course, is that “peer-reviewed” tends to imply more than simply that there is a panel that reviews submissions. One can quite easily gather a panel of one’s family and friends and get them to “review” what one has written. Those who have tangled with the process of publication knows the difference between friendly and agreeable reviewers, and those not selected such as to favor your cause.

    In addition, peer-reviewed journals are generally associated with some center of the academic activity in question or some professional society that supports it. Thus publication in peer-reviewed journals also implies a level of acceptance in the community involved in that particular type of research. Other members of that community read the articles in such journals and might even cite them in their work.

    Of course, peer review could also result in censorship and elimination of good ideas that are out of the mainstream, but might become mainstream later. In that one point reside the hopes and dreams of intelligent design (ID) advocates everywhere. “Our day will come,” they say, “And you will all realize how right we were.” That view might have had some validity a few decades ago, but today if you have a truly good paper it will be very hard to suppress. Get it on the internet and someone or other will see it. If it’s of such good quality that it “shifts the paradigm,” then you’ll be able to show up all those stuffy peer reviewers.

    The creation of a “special” journal for a “special” group of researchers who aren’t acceptable to the broader scientific community doesn’t respond to the underlying problem. What it does is provide creationist debaters who are facing the general public with some ammunition, “smart PR bullets” if you please, targeted at those who don’t really understand the issues. “No peer-reviewed papers? I have five citations here, all from Answers Research Journal. See! It’s peer reviewed. It says so right here.”

    Once the PR point is scored, who cares what science is accomplished? I note the interesting line in the requirements for papers, mixed in with a bunch of format requirements:

    Papers should be no more than 10,000 words long. Color diagrams, figures, and photographs are encouraged. Papers can be in any relevant field of science, theology, history, or social science, but they must be from a young-earth and young-universe perspective. Rather than merely pointing out flaws in evolutionary theory, papers should aim to assist the development of the Creation and Flood model of origins. Papers should be submitted in a plain text, single-spaced Word or RTF file. Formatting should be kept to an absolute minimum. Do not embed graphics, tables, figures, or photographs in the text, but supply them in separate files, along with captions. [emphasis mine]

    Translation: Take that you scientists! You don’t want creationist papers? We don’t take any evolutionist papers, nor papers from folks who believe that the earth is old. We have our conclusions pre-ordained!

    One obvious thing that young earth creationists seem to miss is that not assuming that the earth is 6,000 years old is not the same type of bias as assuming it is. The age of the earth is not an assumption, rather it is the result of considerable research which one can review, challenge, and correct if one wants to.

    In the meantime, Answers in Genesis is also producing some “semi-technical” research. ERV reviews some of this over at the Panda’s Thumb and it doesn’t come out so well. She does a much better job and goes into greater detail than I possibly could. It is, after all, in her field.

    But I could help mentioning a couple of little problems with logic. Consider this paragraph:

    Antibiotic resistance is certainly an example of change, but it is hardly a fact of macroevolution (bacteria remain bacteria). Creation microbiologist, Dr. Kevin Anderson, states that such variation in bacteria is beneficial for their survival outcome in a clinical environment, but not a beneficial mutation. Anderson (2005) goes on to demonstrate how some “fitness” cost is often associated with mutations, although reversion mutations may eventually recover most, if not all, of this cost for some bacteria. A biological cost does occur in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems or functions. Such loss of cellular activity cannot legitimately be offered as a genetic means of demonstrating macroevolution. [all emphasis mine]

    Look at the first bolded portion: “Bacteria remain bacteria”? When are these people going to bring some sort of focus to the idea of a “kind”? The only definition I can see is that if one thing changed into another while somebody was watching they must be the same kind, otherwise not.

    Consider the second bolded portion. Here we are told that a mutation might be beneficial in a clinical environment, but it’s not a “beneficial mutation.” What would make it a beneficial mutation? I would suggest that the fact that more of the bacteria survive in a “clinical environment” than would otherwise is beneficial from the point of view of the bacteria involved. You see, they don’t live in this other theoretical environment, the non-clinical environment with which they are apparently supposed to be concerned.

    Is there some sort of ideal environment where bacteria should want to live and where they should desire to be most fit to live. “Unfortunately we have to survive here in this clinical environment,” say the bacterial philosophers, “but the mutation that allows us to do so isn’t really beneficial, because it doesn’t prepare us for our real home in a non-clinical environment.”

    So then we come to the conclusion of the paragraph where we’re told that because this other loss of functionality occurs, this can’t possibly be used as a case of macroevolution. I’d like to know what that has to do with the case at hand. In the clinical environment, you know, the one where the bacteria with antibiotic resistance have to live, it is a beneficial mutation.

    Go read ERV’s entire post at the Panda’s Thumb.

  • Doggy Oaths

    I’d like someone to explain to me how dogs can become sworn officers. I imagine a lot from my dog’s expressions and attitudes, but I’m at a loss on this one.

    My Dog Barnabas Expressing Himself!

  • Remedial Math and Reading for Chuck Norris?

    In his WorldNetDaily column (HT: Dispatches), Chuck Norris is recommending a reduction in the size of congress. He likes the word “proportional” but doesn’t seem to be able to comprehend it.

    He quotes the part of the constitution from article I section 2:

    The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; . . .

    But he apparently fails to read the entire thing, which (as amended) notes that:

    Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. . . . (Quoted from the 14th amendment which amends the text of the first sentence of the third paragraph of section 2)

    He says:

    If you’ve ever heard the saying, “Too many cooks in the kitchen,” then you know how I feel about Congress.

    But then later he says:

    I don’t only think there are too many cooks in Congress’ kitchen nowadays, but the numbers are stacked in discriminatory ways.

    Perhaps instead of pushing for Bible teaching in public schools, he should go for better math and reading, and undertake some remediation himself.

  • NLT Review

    Via a comment I received a link to this review of the NLT2 which is quite useful, especially because it includes specific examples supporting the major points.

  • John Webb Pitches Complete Game (and a Complaint)

    I don’t have the most positive view of our local newspaper, the Pensacola News Journal, but I normally show this by not reading it. I get local news from other sources, and national news from some of the national internet sources. I do check specific stories on a fairly regular basis and often have my attitude reinforced.

    Such was the result of checking the News-Journal for reports of the July 14 game between the Pensacola Pelicans and the El Paso Diablos. Now note that I admit to being biased, since my stepson was pitching.

    But consider this from the Pelican’s own site, under the headline Pels Win Behind Webb’s Gem:

    Pelican’s starter, John Webb would go the distance as the Pensacola Pelicans (4-10) defeated the El Paso Diablos (7-6) by a score of 4-1. Webb pitched nine strong innings allowing only one run on three hits while striking out six in the first nine inning complete game by a Pelicans pitcher this season.

    So what about the News-Journal? I can’t find their online story. Occasionally I know they don’t link from the sports page, but I’ve checked that along with the Pelicans page, and there’s nothing there. I discovered one problem in finding it in search, however, when I read the print story. They don’t mention pitching. It appears that the first complete game of the season by a Pelicans pitcher is not important, and that somehow the win was done entirely by offense.

    Not only that, they don’t mention defense, which included a number of exceptional plays that helped John keep it down to one run. One catch by center fielder at the wall certainly prevented at least a triple. John himself was part of three plays that were unusual for a pitcher including a double play.

    To be honest, it doesn’t sound like any sort of bias to me. Rather, I think the story must have been written by someone who didn’t really care about the game or take the time to think out a decent story that covered the major facts. Listing the hits and who made them does not a story make.

    End of complaint, I’m sure you’ll be glad to hear.

    It was a great game to watch, especially for the parents of one of the players. The team seemed excited and energized. Even though they lost last night in the next game, I think there is some new crispness in their defensive play. Hopefully they will be able to improve their hitting with runners in scoring position. They’re making a lot of good hits and doing some good base running, but it’s just not coming up at the right time to make the runs.

    They’re up against the Diablos again tonight, and I look forward to a great game.

  • Child Life Program at the Ballpark

    I usually manage to post something here every day, but yesterday was one of those exceptions. What was going on?

    Well, aside from a busy day on the computer side of my business, which is part time, but tends to run in spurts, I was working with my wife, and my stepson John Webb (pitcher for the Pensacola Pelicans) on a project to bring children under treatment for life threatening or very long term treatment out for a night of fun.

    We work with Sacred Heart Hospital, specifically the child life program to raise money through the John Webb Winter Golf Tournament and through other things as they crop up.

    What cropped up this time was an opportunity to auction one of John’s jerseys, signed of course, which went for a substantial amount of money–no, not what a major leaguer would draw, but much more than we expect here in the independent leagues. As a result, John was able to rent one of the “beach suites” at the ballpark, which gives the children an air conditioned place to retreat to if they need it, but also provides a good view of the game.

    Since the catering was donated by Jerry’s Cajun Cafe, a good deal of money from the sale will go to other projects for the child life program. Reward Jerry’s by heading out there for lunch or dinner–you’ll reward yourself with a good meal as well.

    The Pelicans went out of their way as well to make the time fun for the children, inviting them to be involved in various contests, allowing two to be bat boys, and generally checking up on comfort.

    Thanks to the Pelicans official photographer there will be pictures. I’ll post a more detailed report later over on the Pacesetters Bible School Newsletter Blog. At the moment, the John Webb Winter Golf Tournament and related activities are sponsored by Pacesetters, but this will all soon become a separate foundation.

  • Free Speech, Appropriate Speech, and Communion Wafers

    The incident in which a university student took a communion wafer from a Catholic church instead of eating it has stirred up an incredible amount of controversy. For background I’m going to link to just three posts, which in turn will allow you to find all the information you want on the incident and probably more.

    These are:

    Those posts and the related links should give you a chance to discover what you want to know.

    There is one particular point I want to comment on myself, however, and that is the confusion of arguments appropriate for free speech as opposed to appropriate speech. What I mean by that distinction is the difference between actions that should be legally sanctioned, and that one might restrain oneself from taking.

    I’m a pretty extreme advocate of free speech. I’m opposed to campaign finance laws because I see them as infringing on free speech. I think pornography should be legal with the exception of child pornography involving exploitation of children. I think it should be quite legal to insult, vilify, and ridicule. I’m opposed to speech codes in most circumstances. (Private property and gatherings are an obvious exception, where people choose to come together under particular rules.)

    At the same time I restrain myself from much of that speech, and there is a good deal that I believe to be legal that I will not listen to or watch, nor will I facilitate its appearance in any way. That includes the majority of what’s classified as pornography. (I restrict this to “majority” because some people have some incredibly wide definitions of pornography. I will watch an ‘R’ rated movie, for example.) I don’t like excessive use of profanity, and make it my aim not to use such language myself.

    But I believe that there must be a difference between what I think is a good idea, and what is legal. That is a difference that is essential to a free, and thereby diverse, society. I like to restrain myself from certain types of insults to whole groups of people. In some cases I do so because I believe that such insults are simply not true. Most general insults (“all Muslims are violent”, “all Christians are bigots”, “all gays and lesbians are promiscuous”) are not true in the first place, and thus truthfulness alone is enough reason not to use them. Others involve simple courtesy.

    Now let me relate this to the issue of the communion wafers and the reaction to them. I feel this one personally because though I’m not Catholic, I am a fairly high church Methodist who holds to a “real presence” view of the Eucharist. In other words I am one of those people who thinks that something happens when the minister blesses the elements of the Eucharist, and I hold those elements sacred. I don’t believe in transubstantiation (though I should note that many comments have indicated an incorrect understanding of that doctrine) but rather that Jesus is especially present through the Holy Spirit. I believe they should be treated with respect, just as other sacred symbols.

    I’m not particularly offended by people who disagree with me on this, but I am offended at the idea of desecration. Let me distinguish a few gradations here. Speech indicating that my view of the Eucharist is stupid is inoffensive. If you don’t believe what I believe, you’ll find my belief silly at best, and my desire to protect some bread and juice as a bit ridiculous. I’m OK with that. A college student grabbing a wafer is a college prank. It’s a little nasty, but the reaction has been way over the top. College students will do silly things. I know I did. (Note here that a Catholic will almost certainly see this act as a more serious thing than I do based on our respective theologies and traditions.)

    Trying to get some communion wafers so as to especially desecrate them is something I find offensive. It diminishes the stature of the person proposing it in my eyes. Presumably that person will not care about that, but it’s important to understand my position. I have no problem associating with and cooperating in many areas with someone who despises my religion. There is a level of action regarding that contempt that will make such friendly relations difficult.

    I want to add one note. At least in my tradition, the fact that bread was made for communion is not the critical issue, so if you “score” the bread before it’s blessed, it would be a simple property crime, and one on an item of very small value. So in order to commit the desired blasphemy and insult, one would need to get bread that had already been blessed, which could get into some interesting legal issues. Just how much can you disrupt a church service without meriting a “disturbing the peace” charge or some such thing. I really don’t know and hope I don’t have to figure it out.

    Now my point here is that I have found some behavior that is insulting to me, something I find very inappropriate and even reprehensible. I can argue why I feel that way, but many other people will not agree with me. Should I be protected from such an insult?

    In a word, No! Barring some action stepping across legal lines in some other area (theft, actually disturbing the peace as opposed to existing where someone would prefer you don’t, violence done to an actual person) I believe the law should permit me to be insulted in this way. The wafer may be the body of Christ to me, but it’s a cracker to the law. The result is much worse if the law starts to recognize something spiritual.

    So what is my own actual reaction? “PZ, I think that was quite rude.” That pretty much covers it. And I don’t want that opinion of mine to have the backing of law.

    [And just to be clear these e-mails to PZ are both rude and illegal, and those who make such threats should face the full weight of the law.]