Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Is Come or Has Come in 1 John 4:2

    It’s probably a sin, but I simply couldn’t resist. I recorded a video response to a YouTube KJV Only video.

  • Comparing 1 Peter 3:13

    Yesterday I commended the HCSB translation of this verse. Today let me give a couple of other options:

    • HCSB: “And who will harm you if you are passionate for what is good?”
    • REB: “Who is going to do your harm if you are devoted to what is good?” [Doesn’t read well, in my view, even though I love the REB]
    • TNIV: “Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good?” [Excellent, though I like “passionate” for this context]

    Not of these are horrible, nor are a number of others I read. I still like the HCSB best on this one.

  • Revisiting Acts 17:26

    Yesterday I blogged about the HCSB of Acts 17:26, and in particular the portion that reads something like “made of one ______”. The KJV reads “blood” which is one of the textual variants, while the HCSB says “man” which apparently does not occur in any of the ancient manuscripts.

    Since I read these lectionary texts daily for two weeks, today I encountered it in a different version, this time the TNIV, surely not one that could be accused of supporting anything like “male representation”, and it also read “man” in this case.

    I’m not at home right now, so just looking at the immediately available Bible versions, I see the following:

    • REB reads “from one stock”
    • NRSV reads “from one ancestor”
    • CEV reads “from one person”
    • ESV reads “from one man”
    • TEV reads “from one human being”
    • God’s Word (GW) reads “from one man”
    • ISV reads “from one man”

    I think that’s enough to see that most of the versions break where I would expect, with the exception of the TNIV. I wonder what their justification is here. It seems to me that since a number of ancient scribes appear to have provided options, but none thought of “man” here, it is unlikely that ancient readers would have understood this to refer specifically to the one man as human ancestor.

    I’d be interested in comments on the reasoning behind the use of “man” in this verse.

  • Another View on Christians, Creation, and Evolution

    . . . from Lingamish. Speaking of creationists who aren’t stupid. 🙂

  • Are Creationists Stupid?

    Many people get the idea from my posts on evolution that I believe all creationists are stupid or at least irremediably ignorant. In today’s atmosphere, that may be a reasonable view to take from the posts, but I don’t mean it that way, and I don’t intend to accept the current atmosphere.

    In current American culture we are frequently urged to treat everyone’s ideas as essentially equal. They’re just someone’s opinions, and how can one be so arrogant as to suppose his own opinions are better than anyone else’s? I reject that view. If I’ve studied an issue and taken a position, I do so because I think that position is superior to the alternatives. If you want me to change it, don’t explain to me that your view is just as good because all views as “just opinions”; tell my why your view is superior to mine and sound like you mean it. I’ll argue with you, but I won’t be offended.

    There are even certain arguments based on authority that has merit. I believe my opinion on an issue of Biblical Greek or Hebrew is superior to someone who either does not know those languages or has only the basic seminary introductory class in them. Why? Because I have spent years both in formal study and in continued personal study, with daily reading of the Bible in its source languages, and regular study of grammars, lexicons, and other relevant literature. There are those whose opinion is more valuable than mine. That doesn’t mean that the “most superior person” is always right, but it gives them an edge.

    In the creation and evolution controversy, I have taken a position. I’m a theistic evolutionist, or I would prefer to say I am a Christian theist who accepts the theory of evolution in the form of the neo-Darwinian synthesis more or less. I’m going to defend that position with vigor. I have repeatedly stated that I do not question whether those who disagree with me are true Christians. I would be happy to have them in fellowship with me in the same church. I would be happy to have them challenge me. But I’m not going to pretend that I think their position is as correct as the one I’ve accepted. If I thought that, I wouldn’t have accepted it!

    So do I believe all creationists are stupid? Of course that would cover a lot of ground, even with my more limited definition of the word “creationist” as those who believe God has repeatedly intervened in the process. But the answer, even for young earth creationists, is no. Are there some stupid creationists? Yes. But intelligent people can disagree on things. Dr. Kurt Wise, for example, is clearly an intelligent man, but I find his position on this issue totally untenable. He’s a good man, an honest man, and an intelligent man, yet of those adjectives I can apply only “honest” to his position and also be honest myself. So I have to say that I believe his position is fatally flawed. Many will see “fatally flawed” as a weaselly way of saying “stupid.”

    But besides the possibility of simply evaluating the evidence differently, we may encounter self-deception. I think that many creationists have deceived themselves either by avoiding encounters with the evidence (reading only one side, for example) or via the use of conspiracy theories (that’s just those atheist scientists trying to destroy my faith). These people I could not call liars, but nonetheless they present misinformation that has been repeatedly and definitively refuted. It’s hard to keep just the right tone, especially when I think such a person should know better, yet I know that they don’t.

    Intelligent Design (ID) advocates actually get on my nerves in a special way, because they’re chorus of claims that ID has nothing to do with God or religion is simply so obviously phony. The spin is so clear and obvious, and yet they will try to claim that they are misunderstood or that straw man versions of their views are attacked. Yet given a moment of relaxation and they will bring God into the picture.

    Now this whole post could be labeled “arrogant” and “condescending”. Go ahead. I am arrogant enough to believe that my view is superior to other views, condescending enough to tell you so, and stubborn enough not to change them unless you can prove to me that your view is better. I would suggest that Christians especially, as we have truth claims in our religion, should be very careful in using the claim that all ideas are equal.

    Obviously, that is my opinion, to be held until I am convinced by superior evidence and arguments.

  • Joe Carter’s 10 Ways Darwinists Help ID

    I found these 10 ways rather amusing (part 1, part 2, part 3. Perhaps we should all take advice from the opposition and say just the things they’d like us to say. Here’s my response, briefer than my usual!

    1. Well, if ID advocates would just define an actual theory and quit trying to disguise the religious intent, perhaps people’s perception of your work would match yours. I’m not required to be deceived, however, and thus I represent it as I see it rather than as you would like me to see it.
    2. It is stealth creationism. It’s religiously driven. ID advocates must be delusional if they think their activities would be driven by scientific concerns. It’s that large body of creationists out there that keep ID going. Just look at the efforts to market “Expelled!” to churchgoers–an open admission of the religious nature of the controversy if I ever saw one.
    3. “Science in the gaps” is almost cute, but unfortunately completely lacks validity. You see, the “God of the gaps” is constantly receding, while science keeps advancing. The fact that we find ever more complex stuff and then come to understand it is a positive thing about the power of scientific investigation. You’ll have a parallel when you find science retreating and God filling in the space. It’s not going to happen. In reality God is never retreating. He’s unthreatened by natural explanations and science will continue to grow. There’s always going to be something more, at least “always” from a limited human perspective.
    4. Produce some science and scientists will publish it. Until then, quit complaining! Oh, and by the way, it’s not science because–wait for it–it’s not science–not because it isn’t published in peer-reviewed science journals.
    5. Sexual selection is a topic of controversy in evolution. Why not provide some scientific discussion if you think that helps ID. The reason ID advocates won’t do that is that if you adjust the factors a bit you’ll still have evolution.
    6. Learn how words are defined and used in different contexts. In other words, instead of trying to plug your idea of design into a scientific discussion, use the author’s definition.
    7. I’m not an atheist. But I neither want to regulate who gets to be vocal, nor do I want to. If you’re not sufficiently perceptive to hear the many religious voices in favor of the theory of evolution, such as Francis Collins, John Haught, Richard Colling, Kenneth Miller, and many others, perhaps you have a discernment problem.
    8. Where you divide the questions is an interesting point. Richard Colling, in his book Random Designer, deals quite directly with origin of life issues, but the fact is that they are logically somewhat different. Common descent, an old earth, and the mechanism of variation+natural selection are not dependent on explaining the origin of life. The reason creationists want to combine them is that common descent has been largely explained in broad terms, while the origin of life has not. Combining them makes a better target. Scientists, on the other hand, have to investigate the topics, and the different states of the science suggest they need to be looked at separately.
    9. Pot, kettle, black. Oh, and many creationists are liars, especially young earth creationists. That’s not an argument against creationism, but it sure does complicate things. It’s annoying having to hunt for the honest creationist so you can argue with him.
    10. You started by accusing us of attacking a strawman, then you end with a strawman yourself.

    My suggestion to other defenders of evolutionary theory: Don’t take Joe Carter’s advice.

  • Becoming a Pensacola Pelicans Fan

    I very rarely post personal stuff here, but you’re going to have to put up with just a little bit. My son John Webb is a professional pitcher. He has portions of two seasons at the big league level, and a considerable amount of AAA time. He didn’t get that big league contract this year, which was disappointing, but from a parents’ point of view, the consolation prize was pretty good.

    He’s coming to pitch for the home town Pensacola Pelicans, and he’ll be living here. My occasional visits to the ballpark for our American Association team will have to become regular attendance!

    Obviously we still hope for that major league call, but for the moment, we’ll take playing right here at home and be happy.

    You’ll have to live with the updates, a few pictures, and a bit of cheering. I won’t be able to resist.

  • Good Review of Expelled

    … at Higgaion.

  • Does a Woman get her Glory from Man?

    Dave Warnock says emphatically NO!

  • HCSB Acts 17:26 – ADDING Male Representation?

    Besides doing my morning reading from various versions, on those days when I read from the original languages, I sometimes have one of the English versions out for comparison. Today I noticed something rather interesting.

    In Acts 17:26, where the Greek reads ex henos, the HCSB reads “From one man”. In addition they footnote it, but not for the addition of the word “man,” but for the textual variant “from one blood.” Now the textual variants are interesting here. Though USB4 gives this a B rating, and the evidence looks pretty strong to me that it should be just ex henos, there were two different suggestions for “one what?” given by the scribes.

    First, of course, is “one blood” which is also the reading of the KJV. Second is “one mouth” probably best translated here as “one source.” Somehow none of the scribes thought of clarifying this with the word “man.”

    Now “man” is hardly impossible. “One” can be masculine or neuter in this case. But it seems odd that we should wait for the 21st century to get an emphasis on the man rather than the woman whose “one” blood flows through all humanity.

    Oddly enough, as I looked at a few difficult to translate passages, I also came across this excellent translation from the HCSB:

    And who will harm you if you are passionate for what is good? — 1 Peter 3:13 (HCSB)

    I haven’t compared it to my whole collection of modern English versions, but I consider that an excellent rendering. Thus far my impression of the HCSB is that it is quite variable, sometimes seeming clumsy, sometimes having odd renderings, and at other times having some truly excellent stuff, all according to my opinions, of course!