Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Server Problem

    Update: Everything seems to be working. If you made a comment and it’s missing, let me know. Also, the post that used to be at this URL, Nitpicking Translations, can be found by following the link.

    *****

    A server glitch resulted in the temporary loss of some posts and several comments. I’m working to restore all comments. One post will need to be rewritten, but that is a minor problem. I’ll get everyone’s comments back in place by this evening.

    I apologize for any convenience. Contrary to the allegation of one commenter I do not censor comments except for spam and posts that cross some legal barrier. Apparently my server wasn’t aware of this! 🙂

  • The Age of the Earth

    Through the Christian Blog Carnival I found this post by Amanda from Imago Dei blog. She has been working through videos by Kent Hovind, and came to the conclusion that the age of the earth was not that important, and that Kent Hovind’s tactics were not going to accomplish all that much.

    Though all know that I do not accept a young earth, as Amanda does, I agree that it is hardly an essential of the Christian faith. I’m not all that sensitive to accusations of ignorance from either side. Ignorance can be corrected, and bluntly if one takes a completely opposite view on a topic like the age of the earth, one has to find some explanation for the huge difference. I would be content if we could just keep the spiritual judgment out of it. It would be nice if those of us who are Christians could debate the when and how of God’s creation as details, not essentials, and thus do so without accusing one another of being outside the faith.

    It doesn’t disturb me to be called ignorant. It does disturb me to have a fellow Christian say that I’m “just like an atheist” because I’m a theistic evolutionist. I congratulate Amanda on the tone and quality of her post on this divisive topic.

    While I’m at it, let me again recommend Kurt Wise’s book Faith, Form, and Time to those who are looking for a more reasoned defense of the young earth position. I don’t agree with Wise, almost from the start, but he makes an excellent presentation.

  • Other Blogging

    I divided up my blogging between three blogs, other than the group of official blogs where I am a contributor, because I thought that I would be burdening people with excessive extraneous (say that 5 times fast) material. In particular, I comment here mostly on religion and its impact on society as well as on some theological controversies, so I felt that lengthy expositions of passages of scripture would be inappropriate. Thus, I created the Participatory Bible Study Blog for that purpose. I also tinker with lots of different reading and even a bit of fun with fiction and poetry, for which I created the Jevlir Caravansary. As it turns out, I quite frequently have posts I’m not really sure where to place.

    There are a couple readers of Threads might first interesting. First is The War on Fun and Imagination about moral or ethical outrage over people having fun. Then I have Translation and Knowing God, in response to another post suggesting we should have to work to know God. Finally, let me mention my post that was featured in the Christian Blog Carnival this time, Goals in Bible Study.

    We now return you to your regular programming. I’m having fun going through the Christian Carnival looking for posts I can respond to. If you tell me I must say “to which I can respond” I will say, “Never!” Grammar is what I want it to be! Words and their syntax are my servants, not my masters!

  • Prescriptive vs. Descriptive Grammar

    Peter Kirk has a post at the Better Bibles blog discussing what type of language the Bible should be translated into. (Note that I decline to respond to prescriptive grammarians by continuing to use a preposition to end my sentence with.)

    Peter says:

    It seems to me that the only people who have the right to prescribe the form of English are the speakers of the language taken as a whole, exercising their democratic right in the way that they actually speak and write. That implies that the only prescriptive grammar for English is in fact a descriptive one. For if there is any way in which we ought to speak or write, it is the way that the language is actually spoken or written.

    I’m not sure that the language of “rights” is quite appropriate here, though history certainly indicates that whatever the grammarians try to do the people will prescribe the form of the language, and perhaps that is the best form of right!

    Now if any writer or translator wants to communicate with an audience, they (singular they, eh?) must use language that the audience can understand. Thus it seems pretty obvious that a translation should be made into the form of language that people actually speak and understand, assuming that communication is the purpose. I’ve found an interesting phenomenon in classes I’ve taught on Bible translations. People don’t always hold communication to be the primary purpose of a Bible translation. In several classes, substantial minorities, though never a majority, have indicated they would prefer majesty of language. In general, I can get a lively debate going on the question of whether the Bible version used in scripture readings should be targeted at the church members or at whatever group they believe it is their mission to reach.

    One may gather from my ramblings that I think communication is the primary purpose, and that mission tends to define who we are to communicate with. I personally feel very comfortable reading the Revised English Bible, but I tend most commonly to recommend the Contemporary English Version, simply because it is an easier read for my audience.

    But this “prescriptive” vs “descriptive” grammar issue has another dimension, and here I have some appreciation for the prescriptivists. I would suggest that your elementary through high school grammar teachers should be very prescriptivist. In fact, there is a continuing role for prescriptive grammarians in society in trying to keep change in the language to a reasonable minimum. The prescriptive grammarians, represented especially by teachers, also have their democratic vote. All the speakers of a language are equal, one might say, but some are more equal than others.

    None of which changes the final answer to Peter’s question about translating the Bible. For that endeavor, grammar must be strictly descriptive. How does the target audience speak, and what do they understand?

  • Hebrews 2:10-18: Like His Brothers and Sisters

    While chapter 2 is not the core or torso of the argument of the book of Hebrews, it is at least one of the legs on which it stands. To prepare yourself to look at these last few verses, re-read the entire chapter, and then consider looking again at my posts:

    I believe that many of us have trouble with the humanity of Jesus. It’s easier to present Jesus as totally divine; that doesn’t risk his holiness, his sinlessness, and his otherness. And all of those elements are important, as I have discussed before. In the atonement, Jesus brought infinite, holy, omniscient, omnipotent God into contact with a humanity that was anything but those things. It’s really hard to imagine. I believe seeing Jesus as truly human is much harder than it is to see him as the divine coming king.

    There are three key reasons for this, I believe. First, we have convinced ourselves that despite much scripture to the contrary, human beings are truly wretched creatures without a shred of value. The atonement should, at a minimum, make one think about that proposition. Value is determined by what buyers are willing to pay, and look just what our buyer was willing to pay. (Note that I’m not saying, “self-sufficient” or “capable of saving ourselves.”) Second, we have become afraid that the human side of Jesus will defame his majesty. Third, however, I think that the human Jesus challenges us more directly in a moral and ethical sense, as exemplified by the words of verses 1-4 or chapter 2. If Jesus was less that truly human, then we have a ready-made excuse for our own failures.

    Hebrews is a book that is not strong in the excuse department; it’s strong in the challenge department, and that’s where we’re getting here in chapter 2. Jesus is like us. He suffered (v. 10), he’s our brother (v. 11), he shares flesch and blood (v. 14), he even shared death with us (v.15), all this was not for angels, but was rather for human beings (v. 16). Because he is one of us, he can sympathize with us (v. 17). He has suffered like us, and so he can sympathize with those who are being tested (v. 18). All this relates closely to Hebrews 4:14-16 as well, which we will study more later.

    Comments

    10For it was appropriate for him {God}, because of whom everything exists and by means of whom everything exists, in bringing many sons into glory, to perfect the pioneer of their deliverance through suffering.

    Note that this does not refer exclusively to the suffering of the cross, but rather to the suffering that is involved in being human. Jesus was made perfect or complete as a priest and as a sacrifice by sharing suffering with us as human beings. Thus he became the pioneer of our deliverance.

    11Indeed, the one who is making holy and those being made holy are of one essence. For this reason he {Jesus} is not ashamed to call them brethren. 12For he says:

    “I will proclaim your fame among your brethren,
    In the midst of the assembly I will sing praise songs to you.”
    [Psalm 22:22]

    13
    “I will continue to put my trust in him.”
    [Isaiah 8:17 LXX]

    Again, the humanity of Jesus is affirmed. In the next few verses we will see a little bit more about this. We can truly use the pronoun “we” when we refer to Jesus and the rest of us.

    . . . and again 14Since then the children share blood and flesh, he himself likewise shares the same things. In this way, by means of death he can do away with the one who has the power of death, namely the devil.

    It’s interesting that we usually talk about the lies the Devil has told about God, and indeed he has lied about God, but we don’t always see the lies that he has told about human beings. One of those unsuccessful lies was telling us that we would not die. But the first parents, and every one of us know that we will die, and for us that is a frightening prospect. No matter how much intellectual evidence a person has, there seems to still be some fear of death. That’s because this body, this person cannot experience what is beyond. As Christians we have a great hope.

    Jesus is the pioneer. How does Satan hold us down here? It’s largely through fear. Before my son had cancer, from which he eventually died, I did not really understand this aspect of fear. In the oncologist’s office, on the hospital ward, amongst our friends, even in church, the essence of being ill with cancer was fear. That was really the greatest enemy. James conquered that fear. No, I don’t mean that he was no longer afraid at all, but he didn’t let it stop him. He was able to live those last months of his life. Why? Because Jesus gave him that power. The pioneer had gone before. When he died there was sorrow, but there was also peace.

    15So he can release those who were subject to servitude all their lives by fear of death.

    The problem here is that the fear of death prevents us from living. Our lives are stolen away from us not by death, though that terminates this life, but by the constant fear of death along the way. The resurrection gives us another option.

    16For clearly he is not concerned with angels, but rather with the seed of Abraham.

    We are further reminded that all of this discussion is truly of human beings and not of angels. There are twin dangers. On the one hand we can decide we’re good enough on our own, and not seek salvation. On the other we can decide we’re not good enough even for God to rescue.

    17For this reason it was necessary for him to be like his brethren in all ways, so that he could become a merciful and faithful high priest concerning divine matters {matters dealing with God} in order to cleanse the sins of the people. 18Because he was tested by the things he suffered, he is able to sympathize with those who are tested.

    Notice this “like his brethren in all ways.” I think that Jesus left behind the powers of divinity, but not the character of God. He lived as human beings must live. He grew (Luke 2:52) and he agonized in prayer even in Gethsemane. I think he had to learn of God’s plan as we do, listening to the Holy Spirit. This was not because he was, in fact, less than God, but rather because, though he was God, he chose not to exercise those extra powers of divinity and to depend on the Father for that guidance and that power.

    Thus he becomes not only capable of being our pioneer, he becomes a challenge to everyone. Can we depend on the Father in the way that Jesus did? Can we submit so totally to God’s will that nothing will take us aside? That’s the challenge of this chapter.

  • Christian Carnival CXXXVIII Posted

    My Participatory Bible Study blog is represented in this week’s Christian Carnival CXXXVIII: The Kingdom Beacon Herald. I’ve intended to submit something for some time, and though it’s not hard, I’ve just never gotten around to selecting a good entry.

    It looks like a fun set of entries, including not only mine, but also this excellent post starting a series transcribing material from Dr. Francis Collins at the American Scientific Affiliation meeting. Those are by no means the only material of interest, of course.

    Go and enjoy!

  • Christian Carnival CXXXVIII: The Kingdom Beacon Herald

    The Christian Carnival CXXXVIII has been posted and for the first time I’ve submitted an entry from this blog.

    Go! Read! Enjoy!

  • Conscience of a Christian Publisher

    A friend tipped me off by e-mail to a post, and I think it is appropriate to respond. The poster, Centurion, expresses his concern about Christian booksellers and publishers, and their choices in terms of what to offer their customers, especially considering that many of them regard their business as a ministry as well.

    I’m a Christian publisher, a very small one, offering 15 titles at this point, some of them my own, and I certainly do have a conscience about what I publish. My conscience, however, seems to tell me something substantially different than Centurion’s.

    (more…)

  • Religion and Terror, Cause and Effect

    In an article titled The New Naysayers, Newsweek discusses some new books by atheist authors who blame many of the world’s ills on religion. It’s an interesting article, though not much of this material is particularly new. It seems to me that a good deal of writing about history or about the general state of the world is involved with an attempt to blame broad results on some general answer. Christianity destroyed the Roman Empire (it was such a solid structure before Constantine’s conversion), atheism caused communism, and more recently that the theory of evolution has caused just about every evil thing in the world, starting with Nazism.

    (more…)

  • From Saint to Sinner

    Lingamish comments today on sinners becoming saints and touches on the possibility of saints becoming sinners.

    It’s high drama for a sinner to become a saint (Read St. Augustine’s Confessions) but higher still is the tale of a saint who becomes a sinner. A fictional example from Spanish literature is San Manuel Bueno Martir by Miguel de Unamuno. I read that story in a Spanish Lit class in college and it has haunted me ever since.

    This is a question that haunts many, many people, and my own experience had led me to be very interested in it. I left the church entirely out of seminary, and only returned 12 years after that. I discuss it at some length in my post on the Participatory Bible Study Blog, Hebrews 6:4-6: Can Those who Fall Return?. I link from there to my personal testimony as well. Here, however, I want to discuss point of view in answering this question. See my discussion of Hebrews 6 (linked above) for more scripture on the topic.

    The issue of falling away and returning is a very contentious issue, and I think it is contentious precisely because it cuts very close to the heart. All of us are probably acquainted with people who are terribly fearful that they are not really saved, and that God is going to get them because of some minor failing. Perhaps they will commit the sin of adultery in their heart and then be run over by a bus before having the opportunity to confess it. Living in that type of fear is a terrible thing, and spiritually debilitating. On the other hand we probably also know people who are so sure that they have the inside track to God that they don’t feel any need to seek spiritual or ethical growth. In each case, we may tend to react against unbalanced teaching that led to the problem.

    I believe there are at least three perspectives from which one might answer the question:

    1. Biblical
      I think the Bible is a bit equivocal on this issue. There are plenty of scriptures that support our security with God, but also plenty that warn against overconfidence, or more accurately self-confidence.
    2. Theological
      This one is often the hardest. What precisely is true. Can someone lose their salvation? I recall a class with a Calvinist student. In one discussion I told him that I had serious problems with a God who could predestine some people to eternal damnation. He responded that he didn’t particular like it, but that was what he thought was true. I don’t think the Bible makes it quite that clear.
    3. Pastoral
      The answer from a pastoral perspective will often depend on who’s asking the question. Is this a person who is short on security? Are they concerned that God can’t accept them? One might need to emphasize security. Is this a person who is inclined to carelessness? Perhaps the firmer version of Hebrews 6:4-6 would be more applicable. Of course, a pastor needs to work within what he understands to be the truth as well.

    For me, the answer must come largely from the pastoral perspective, because I think that’s the way the Bible tends to answer the question. Looking at the entire book of Jeremiah we can see how an entire nation, and especially the city of Jerusalem, became very confident that because of God’s promises they did not need to fear destruction. The promises were needed because the people needed to comprehend the value of a stable relationship. The judgment was required because people became so complacent in an assured relationship that they let that relationship die.

    I suspect that God looks more at the pastoral perspective on these issues. For myself, I often reduce this to the following: It’s possible for someone to reject salvation after apparently accepting it, but it is never accidental.