Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Origen and Bible Censorship Poll Results

    You can see the poll results here if you haven’t done so already. I’m going to replace the poll with a new one. I posted this poll after reading Origen’s comment that immature Christians should not be permitted to read certain passages of scripture, especially the Song of Songs (or Song of Solomon).

    I found this poll interesting, because as I expected there were few people who wanted to try to control church members’ Bible reading. I was wondering if there might be a few out there, but there were none. The only restriction that received any votes was that children shouldn’t be allowed to read sexually explicit passages (1 vote out of 20). The remainder were simply different ways of saying people should be allowed to read whatever they want.

    Thanks to all who responded.

  • Roundup Florida Science Standards

    Wesley Elsberry has provided a roundup of his posts on the Florida science standards. Note that the vote on these will be February 19.

  • Am I a Darwinian?

    I spent Saturday, February 9, traveling to/from or in Tallahassee. I was there to attend the annual meeting of Florida Citizens for Science, and also to take in some Darwin Day speakers at the FSU Medical School. I was able to work in Dr. Harry Kroto and Dr. Eugenie Scott (National Center for Science Education), and also part of the final panel that include Dr. Michael Ruse amongst others.

    There is a problem with these meetings in that we gather together people who already agree that the theory of evolution is sound science and we are encouraged by those supporting it and alarmed by the number of folks in this country who oppose it. Often little is accomplished in convincing anyone who wasn’t convinced already. But it’s really a very small problem. There is a place for educating and encouraging the choir, and those of us who were there learned some things about communicating evolution. I would say that the very best way to build support for the theory of evolution, and thus also sound science generally, is to provide better science education.

    Why do I think supporting the theory of evolution in particular encourages sound science? In order to truly do science one must be willing to follow the evidence where it leads. Evolution is the main point on which large numbers don’t want to do that. As long as we say we can ignore the facts discovered by science, we are inevitably weakened.

    There was one discussion that interested me especially because of my linguistic background. Dr. Scott made the comment that we should not accept the title “Darwinist” because that title is applied to us by creationists as an epithet. Physicists are not Kelvinists, for example. (Dr. Scott provided a considerable list.) I can see her point on this, because the term “Darwinist” has been poisoned so much by the debate. Dr. Michael Ruse objected on this one point and suggested rather than he didn’t mind being called a “Darwinian.”

    I’m kind of torn on the issue. I don’t like being called an “evolutionist.” It’s not my religion or my political “ism.” It’s just a well-established scientific theory that I accept. It shouldn’t be regarded with surprise that I accept it; the reverse should be true. Why would one not accept a theory with such solid support? But at the same time I dislike the misuse of Charles Darwin’s name. Evolution today is not limited to what he discovered, but at the same time he was both a man of his age, and thus not perfect, while at the same time he was a wonderful example of a scientist, and a scientific thinker. He was able to step beyond the paradigms of his age and provide a whole new foundation for understanding the whole science of biology. In that sense, I would proud–but unqualified–to be called a Darwinian.

    The bottom line, I suspect, is that I can do very little about what people choose to call me or anyone else. I will likely be a “theistic evolutionist” for the indefinite future, even though I object to the “ist” on evolutionist and the “theistic” part of the title. I both believe in God and I accept the theory of evolution. My theism does not modify the data of the theory of evolution. Yet the title has become accepted and does identify a somewhat coherent group of people.

    Perhaps we should take on the name “Darwinian” and try to rescue the reputation of the fine scientist form which it is derived. The fact that this must be done is a sorry comment on our culture.

  • Not Through the Law: Romans 4:13

    One of the major elements of the new perspectives on Paul is the changing view of justification. In a broad sense, one could say that justification involves not a moment of personal salvation, but rather a moment of incorporation into a broad community, known as the people of God, kingdom of God, or the body of Christ. One of the things that Jesus did was to make it possible for you to become part of that community, and it is that community that will eventually be glorified.

    The individual aspect of salvation is not eliminated, but is certainly pushed more into the background. There is less room here for the individual who has “prayed the prayer” and then never done another thing that appears related to being Christian. James might call on that person to show his or her faith by works.

    Lately, I have been trying to read passages in Paul with this option in mind just to see how it fits. I am not fully convinced of the change, but I am becoming more so. Today I was again reading Romans 4:13 (it’s part of this coming Sunday’s lectionary passages), and it hit me again:

    For the promise that he would inherit the world did not come to Abraham or to his descendants through the law but through the righteousness of faith. (NRSV)

    Now if “law” generally refers to the Torah–and I think that’s not a bad suggestion for Romans and Galatians at least–then there’s something obvious going on here. The Torah came after Abraham. God inaugurated this whole thing without any such written body of law. Grace was the only option. Grace had to act before there was even any knowledge that things could be other than what they already were. Revelation comes to Abraham as a grace, and grace comes to him by revelation.

    This reminds me of an issue I have with some Christian apologetics that attempts to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, the Christ, by means of tying a series of prophecies together that he fulfilled. Enough prophecies apparently should bring certainty. But how many prophecies did Abraham need? Did Moses have to fulfill a string of prophecies to prove he was anointed by God? No, each person comes through an act of God at the time. The prophecies are much more a case of tying Jesus back into the tradition stream–the community if you will–than it is a case of proving that he fits some specification.

    God can come and act without getting ducks in a row. “For while we were still weak, at the right time, Christ died for the ungodly” Romans 5:6 (NRSV).

  • Colgate Cares Giving Child Fun Center

    Colgate Cares will give one fun center to a hospital and they are inviting votes as to where it will go.

    Many of my readers know that in 2004 we lost our 17 year old son James to cancer after a five year battle. Each year our son John Webb, supported by the rest of the family and many friends, hold the John Webb Winter Golf Tournament to raise money for the child life program at Sacred Heart Children’s Hospital here in Pensacola. The reason we chose that particular project was simply that James chose it before he died. He said that was the most difficult thing for him, and that is also not where the big bucks usually go.

    Right now the Colgate site has suspended voting for a technical issue, but I want to call your attention to it in any case, and hopefully you will get on there and vote for a hospital near you or one you prefer. More importantly, take this opportunity to look at some of the hospitals and consider getting involved just a bit. Childhood cancer is very difficult for parents, children, families, friends, and all the wonderful medical professionals who fight it. Every ray of sunshine is appreciated.

    So go and vote, and also learn.

  • Genealogy Problems

    A few weeks ago someone asked me to post my college paper on the genealogies of Genesis 5 & 11. This was the paper that started me on the road away from young earth creationism. It is actually not very earthshattering, but it did start my thinking.

  • Frank Schaeffer for Obama

    Read more on Levellers – Frank Schaeffer: “Why I Am a Pro-Life Obama Supporter”.

  • Some CJB Terminology in Romans

    I did my lectionary reading today from the Complete Jewish Bible. Each day I read two sets of lectionary texts, one from the current week, and one from the week following. I try to choose a different version each day, and also read them at least once from the original languages.

    This week’s epistles passage is Romans 5:12-19, and next week’s is Romans 4:1-5, 13-17. I’m going to stick to some terms in those to give a flavor of the use of terminology. I will work through these in the order in which they appear in Romans. Note also that I would not criticize all of these renderings. I’m just trying to provide a flavor for those who have never worked with this version. Some of these are not bad, in fact, though they will sound very unusual to the ears of one who is accustomed to one of the more standard English versions.

    Romans 4:1 Avraham replaces the familiar Abraham. In the CJB all names are replaced with something close to their Hebrew equivalents, even when translating Greek.

    Greek kata sarka (according to the flesh) translated “by his own efforts.”

    Romans 4:2 Greek ergon (works) translated “legalistic observances.”
    Romans 4:3 Greek graphe (scripture) translated “Tanak.”
    Romans 4:13 Greek dia nomou (through the law) translated “through legalism”
    Romans 4:14 Greek ek nomou (from the law) translated “by legalism”

    Greek pistis (faith) translated “trust”

    Romans 4:16 Greek to ek tou nomou monon (to one who holds to the law) translated “those who live within the framework of the Torah”
    Romans 5:13 Greek me ontos nomou (when there is no law) translated “when there is no Torah”
    Romans 5:15 Greek Iesou Christou (Jesus Christ) translated “Yeshua the Messian.”

    Again, as I mention in my notes on this version, the literary style and quality is quite variable as the translator makes an effort to clarify his understanding of Jewish concepts in the text. He may be hyper-literal or ultra-paraphrastic in order to accomplish that goal.

  • CJB Detail Entry Updated

    I have updated the entry for the Complete Jewish Bible (CJB) in my Bible Version Selection Tool. This adds notes on the version, which were vanishingly brief before, and now it’s merely brief!

  • Review of Evidence for the Bible

    I sent a free review copy of Elgin Hushbeck’s book Evidence for the Bible to Christopher Smith of Mild-Mannered Musings, and he has begun his review. It is fairly negative but is also very substantive, and it’s my policy to post a link to any substantive review, negative or positive. In fact, I will be going to the official Energion Publications blog and posting a link as well as soon as I’m finished this post.

    I’m not going to enter the debate myself, but I do continue to invite bloggers who will review the books or blog on reading them in response to debates by others to ask for review copies. I send the books on a case by case basis, but the vast majority of those who request will get books. The only reason I would not send books at this point would be if someone had requested free books before and then never said anything. The main reason for me staying out is that I am myself somewhat more liberal than Elgin Hushbeck, and I think a man shouldn’t have to debate his publisher.

    I will also take a hit specifically on the German citation noted in the review. Mr. Hushbeck does not read German, but I do. The errors hit me in the face on first glance today, but I confess I missed them in dozens of passes through before. I can only claim that I must have seen what I expected to see. My company is a small publisher (19 titles so far) and this is an area that will improve as we grow. Right now I personally have to take responsibility for all the proof-reading in foreign languages because I’m the only one in the company who can. On the other hand, when alert readers catch things and tell me, I can add them to an errata list.

    In any case, I expect to read this series of posts with interest.