Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • 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!

  • Missing the Point on Darwin and Hitler

    Supposing some scientist goes out into some wilderness area and observes the behavior of predators with a species of herd animals. He observes that the slowest and weakest of the herd animals tend to fall prey to the predators while the stronger or faster ones survive. This scientist comes back and and reports on this behavior and its effects.

    A while later some politician reads this article and decides to base a political philosophy on it. Obviously, based on that article, the best way to improve the human species is to subject them to such pressure from hunting. Only in this way, he says, can we ensure that the human species continues to improve.

    Which of the following behaviors would be reasonable:

    1. Criticizing the scientist for providing fodder for the politician
    2. Assuming that the scientist desired the outcome proposed by the politician
    3. Determining that the scientist must be wrong because immoral conclusions could be drawn from his work
    4. Deciding that the politician has misapplied the science
    5. Criticizing the politician on moral grounds irrespective of the science

    I suggest that the first three are obviously wrong, while the last two are possibilities, amongst many, for dealing with the situation. Yet people err in precisely this way with respect to evolution and its relation to Hitler and the Nazis.

    There’s a simple point here missed by such people as David Klinghoffer, who is (surprise!) a fellow of the (No-)Discovery Institute. He manages to point out that Hitler (gasp!) quoted Darwin. And then Joe Carter, over at evangelical outpost goes ahead and links to it as though it had intellectual content.

    Come on folks, this is a lousy argument. It’s not a sensitive one; it’s just plain lousy. As in it has no merit whatsoever.

    The theory of evolution is either a good scientific theory, or it’s not. Whether Hitler quoted the scientist who first proposed it is of no relevance one way or another. Even if it’s a bad theory, the fact that Hitler quoted it would add not one little bit of weight to the arguments against it. If it is a valid theory, being quoted by Hitler takes nothing from that.

    It’s a scientific theory; it stands or falls as such.

  • Why I Hate the KJV

    OK, I just can’t resist taking a poke at the KJV-Only movement every so often. This time I did it on video. Stand by for more!

  • Why I Hate the KJV

    Well, confession is good for the soul. It’s time I own up to all that deep seated, seething hatred for the KJV.

    And thus, my first effort on YouTube, crossed with video blogging:

    See! That was easy!

  • A Coherent Foreign (and Domestic) Policy

    I have thought since 2004 that if John Kerry had managed to appear to have an actual policy on terrorism, a strategy for how to make a safer United States and world, he would now be president. As it was, he was perceived to be proposing pretty much what Bush was doing only less of it.

    In Newsweek, Michael Hirsh is suggesting that the Democrats are wimping out on defense again, not on the battlefield, but on the campaign trail. His article The Democrats’ Wimp Factor paints a picture of the Democrats handing the national defense issue to the Republicans.

    To a certain extent I think he’s right. I think the Democratic candidates want to speak mostly about issues they feel they’re already strong on, and that means the economy, health care, education, and other domestic issues. Perhaps they’re right. I’m afraid that personally if I was making the choice purely on domestic issues I’d end up voting Republican. The anti-trade and careless spending policies of the Democrats are matched only by the careless war spending of the Republicans. Both parties seem to think they can propose programs without worrying about cost and sustainability.

    But as I’ve said before about health care, national defense has to be produced. Not only must we have soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, we need the equipment of war. All of that costs, and that makes strategy extremely important.

    I’ve argued for some time for strategy in both our foreign policy, and by strategy I mean something that looks decades, not just months, into the future. I think there is room for a Democratic strategy against terrorism, because frankly the Republicans have a loser–keep occupying countries where terrorists operate. This is not even a World War II style strategy; it goes back to something like the civil war in its architecture, and we’re using it against an enemy that just doesn’t operate that way.

    But if the Democrats respond with just “let’s do less” as in “let’s get out of Iraq” without working on a sustainable plan to make us safer, they will certainly lose on that issue. People tend to go with someone who looks like he has a plan and is doing something as opposed to someone who just says, “No, let’s not do that.”

    But as I was reading that article it occurred to me that neither party actually has a domestic strategy either. We have a “stimulus package” but what is the ultimate goal? As far as I can tell the politicians haven’t even thought beyond the end of the current cycle. McCain’s proposed response on energy–cut out the gas tax for a bit–is the same type of response. Let’s scratch the itch. But the skin disease that caused the itch is still going strong.

    How about a strategy that involves improving education first, with responsibility, accountability, quality educational standards, and extremely qualified teachers? While we’re at it, let’s look at that curriculum carefully and see what is preparing people to live and work in the new high tech world, and what is just wasting time. That will require strategic thinking, again in terms of decades, because education is in such a mess.

    How about a strategy that involves improving law enforcement with better training, better equipment, more manpower, and clearer direction? Perhaps we could prevent more crime if we were willing to invest in having the people there in time to do it. I know many of our law enforcement officers try, but we expect a large amount of results from our investments.

    What about a strategy that builds the tax base rather than talking about how to divide the pie that we have more ways, or take more from the people’s part of the pie to put into the government. I’m not anti-all-domestic-programs. But again, government programs tend to alleviate the current symptom without looking at the root of the problem.

    Perhaps Democrats are wimpy on defense, but our politicians are wimpy on policy. We, the voters, are to blame, because we’ll vote these guys out if they tell us what they’re programs actually cost. We’d prefer to be deceived. We won’t listen to them long enough to explain an educational reform strategy with a reach of decades. We’d find it boring and call that politician a “policy wonk.”

    We need to increase our attention span, pay attention, perhaps take notes, and vote accordingly. We may find that we’re often voting for only a marginal improvement, but if we do that much, we can push things in the right direction.

  • Expelled: No Mainstream Scientists Allowed

    Well, I got past my hardware problems, and then started to read my e-mail and some of my RSS feeds. First, I came across an e-mail from Christianity Today’s ChristianBibleStudies.com, from which I often get useful material. Today, they’re wanting me to pay $5.95 for a discussion of the movie that I can use in my Sunday School class.

    I am not encouraged by their link to an interview with Ben Stein that starts out:

    Ben Stein got his start as a lawyer and a speechwriter for Presidents Nixon and Ford, and in more recent years he has written books, offered investment advice, and hosted both a game show (Win Ben Stein’s Money) and a reality TV show (America’s Most Smartest Model). But he is probably still best known for playing the boring high-school economics teacher who took attendance in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.

    Now Stein is tackling education of a different kind, as the star of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, a documentary about the Intelligent Design movement—and the academic establishment’s efforts to stifle the debate over the limitations of evolutionary theory that many ID advocates have been calling for.

    I decided not to spend $5.95 and probably not to discuss Expelled! in any Sunday School classes either.

    The problem I have is that Expelled! is also squeezing some folks out, and they are making Christianity Today a co-conspirator in that process. The ones squeezed out? All those Christians, even evangelical Christians who would like much of what Christianity Today publishes, but who accept the theory of evolution.

    This is one of the many problems with this movie. It frames the controversy as one between theists and atheists, between moral people and immoral people, and thus leaves out Christian evolutionists, moral atheists, and many people who are not particularly religious or anti-religious, but are simply out there doing the best science they can. As one of those Christian evolutionists, I find this implication appalling. According to this movie and its promoters, I’m a co-conspirator with a bunch of Nazis to persecute Christians.

    I recall a student of mine who took my Creation-Evolution seminar–the short, four hour version–and then talked to one of his fellow students in biology class. This man was interested in Christianity, and attracted to it, but simply found the evidence for evolution overwhelming. My young student was able to explain to him that the theory of evolution was not contrary to all forms of Christianity, and soon he was involved in a local church.

    I was disappointed in Christianity Today, but I was pleased to note that Reasons to Believe, with whom I often disagree, has noticed the nature of the Expelled! propaganda piece as well. As reported on The Panda’s Thumb, they have asked folks associated with their ministry not to endorse the movie in a way that connects with their official business:

    Therefore, we ask all chapter members and volunteers to refrain from endorsing EXPELLED in any official way. This request does not extend to your personal interactions-only to any actions taken in association with or on behalf of Reasons to Believe. (The whole quote is here.)

    Through a comment on the Panda’s Thumb article, I found this post by Ken Ham on the Answers in Genesis blog, who, not surprisingly is excited by the film’s release and is encouraging all his supporters to view it. (Note that the Answers in Genesis blog doesn’t allow comments or trackbacks. Perhaps that is their demonstration of how much they value dialog.)

    If we Christians are to welcome such mainstream scientists into our community, our family, we will have to learn to be reasonably respectful toward them. It would seem that not calling them Nazis would be a good start in that direction! If this is a battle about freedom of speech, then it should apply to all parties. If it is a battle in the culture war, then it’s unfortunate that a salvo such as this has been launched at so many devout Christians who accept the theory of evolution.

    I do not object to vigorous argument, as long as it is vigorous and honest. Expelled! fails to meet the standard.

    Hmm. That’s enough rambling at the end of a day spent largely taking my computer apart and putting it back together. If I said anything really weird, I’ll make that the excuse!

  • Bad Hardware Day

    For all who have come to expect me to be prolific, I have but one post for today. I’m having hardware problems. I decided to upgrade a couple of things related to putting out my podcast, and the upgrades, which should have been simple, have been anything but.

    I assume I will have a working system by tomorrow, but right now things are a bit questionable.

    Enjoy!

  • Patriotism: What Do I Owe my Country?

    I like to think of myself as a patriot, but then there are times when I shy away from the term because of some things that are done in the name of patriotism. I served my country in uniform, even while disagreeing with many of the policies of my government. Despite any disagreements, I carried out those policies to the best of my capability.

    I’m an opponent of the war in Iraq, but what would I do if I were still in the military? Would I be protesting? Would I be speaking publicly against the war? No. I would vote my conscience, I would speak privately to friends and relatives, but I would carry out my duties again to the best of my ability. Note that this would not include what I would view as illegal orders–torture, for example. But for the vast majority of those in the military those particular questions do not occur. In the military, I owed it to my country to carry out its policies to the best of my ability.

    We live in a republic in which power resides ultimately with the people. I think the primary requirement for patriotism for those not in the military (or similarly sworn to carry out politically determined policies) under those circumstances is involvement. There are things one can do that are disloyal, such as desertion from the military, providing information to enemies, or actively working to destroy the country. But the primary responsibility of the citizen is to be heard.

    Some seem to believe that patriotism involves supporting your country’s policies, once made, no matter what. There is a sort of reverence when they refer to the actions of the commander-in-chief. But even though I voted against the current resident of the White House, I participated in making him commander-in-chief, and I get to participate in choosing the next president and seeing him leave.

    Would it be patriotism for me to support the current war just because my president got it started? I think it would, in fact, be precisely the opposite. The war is a bad move in what appears to be a bad ad hoc strategy, and it will result in no good for the country that I love. Given that I believe that, could I possibly be a patriot and a person of integrity if I didn’t say it? I would suggest the opposite, that I would be the worst sort of lying traitor in those circumstances.

    That doesn’t mean that the honest supporter of the war is less of a patriot. In fact, such a person would be a lying traitor if he or she does not act in support of those positions. We each owe our country our best arguments and our vote.

    Patriotism, in my view, is not the support of a set of policies, but rather that one gives one’s best in all areas, including one’s mind and judgment to one’s country and does so with integrity.

  • Green Roofs for the Environment and Economic Benefit

    In popular discussions of ecological issues, which as a non-expert is all I’m privy to, it seems to me that each potential solution is judged as a solution to the whole problem. For example, the question in biofuels seems be whether they can solve dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuel emissions on their own. Of course, they will never meet that standard. It’s hard to tell just how much they can do. I’ve seen enough to make me wonder.

    But I have always thought that with the proper atmosphere (intellectual, not physical!) entrepreneurial activity would produce solutions, probably in many small pieces, that would allow technology and sound ecological policy to coexist. This article from MSNBC.com seems to me to point at one idea that has potential. The savings in energy costs could be substantial over the life of a building.

    I think this also suggests that the idea of charging for environmental impact, provided such charges can be realistically established, would be beneficial as it would make the economic incentive both greater and more immediate. Saving on your own power bill is one thing; being charged for your impact on the environment of a city would be much more substantial. Some think it would be unfair and put an excessive burden on business, but if the costs were realistically calculated, then somebody is already paying. Shouldn’t it be the person who is having the impact?

    With an economic incentive, creative people will find ways to reduce that impact, and that creates an industry rather than destroying industry. With some suggesting that ecological responsibility will ruin our standard of living, and others suggesting we ruin it for the benefit of the environment, perhaps we can find some really creative people in the middle who will make it all work together.

    That’s one non-expert’s hope, at least!