Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Van Till a Freethinker?

    With a hat tip to Dispatches from the Culture Wars, I’d like to call attention to the text of a speech given by Howard J. Van Till (The Fourth Day) to the Freethought Association of West Michigan. Van Till’s work on evolution in general and intelligent design in particular is amongst my favorite reading, and he provides some excellent insights into working with truth, and our view of what truth is, in the context of a religious institution.

    While I experienced some hostility as a graduate student in a Seventh-day Adventist institution, I never experienced this degree of hostility, but I did reject the idea of signing a doctrinal statement in order to be able to teach. That was one of the things that led me away from even seriously seeking work in an Adventist institution. Now as a member of the United Methodist Church, I often actually seem quite conservative.

    Readers who come from my current side of the aisle–mainstream Christianity outside the Calvinist or Catholic traditions–may find it hard to empathize with Van Till. Calvinism tends to be much more creedal, and thus to be much more explicit.

    But I am no less subject to having an ODoR (operational description of reality) than anyone else, and often being less explicit about it simply makes it harder to examine, rather than meaning that one is actually more open minded. I think Van Till has again provided some excellent insight into the nature of the controversy over creation and evolution, and the relationship of science and religion.

  • Notes on 1 Corinthians 12

    Note: I’m using a loose phonetic transliteration of Greek terms throughout. This is just intended to give the reader some guidance as to pronunciation.

    For reference information on the Greek words cited, see 1 Corinthians 12-14: Greek Terms. Draft translation is from my Totally Free Bible Version project, and is just a draft.

    1-3: Character of God’s Spirit

    1Now brothers and sisters, I don’t want you to be ignorant about spirituality.

    This could also be translated “spiritual matters.”? The neuter and masculine forms are identical. A number of commetators agree, but very few translations. I also prefer this translation in the first verse of chapter 14, where I haven’t been able to find anyone that agrees with me. Nonetheless I believe quite strongly that “gifts” is not correct in either place. I’ll discuss 14:1 more in my notes on that chapter.

    2You know that when you were gentiles, you were led here and there by idols that could not speak.

    Greek: aphona = without voice or without meaning. Ties to 14:10 which uses the same term.

    3So I’m letting you know that nobody speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed” and nobody can say “Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit.

    This should not be taken as a magical formula, but rather as the introduction to Paul’s idea of discerning spiritual things.

    Greek anaqhma (anathema) = cursed

    Paul is here primarily creating categories rather than providing a test. The test is coming up in chapters 13 & 14 as Paul discusses the use of the gifts.

    The following section describes the variety of gifts and emphasizes that all gifts come from the same spirit. It is more a continuation of the statement of the problem than of the solution. The “phanerosis”? of the spirit is not how one discerns between the Holy Spirit and false spirits. Rather, it is the visible part of the action of the invisible Spirit. Paul is simply emphasizing what is seen in order to develop his concept of discernment.

    A Variety of Everything, but One Spirit

    4There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit.

    Greek carismata (charismata) = gifts. See “Greek Terms” on both carisma and pneumatiko” (pneumatikos).

    5And there are different kinds of service, but the same Lord.

    Greek diakonia (diakonia) = service

    6And there are different kinds of activities, but the same God who accomplishes everything in everyone.

    Greek energhma (energêma) = activity

    7The visible action of the Spirit is given to each one for the common good.

    Greek fanerwsi” (phanerosis) = bringing to light or disclosure. This is normally translated as “manifestation.” I’ve chosen “visible action” as a translation. This is the action that can be seen, but not the sign that distinguishes the action of the Holy Spirit from that of another spirit or from the absence of spirit.

    8To one is given the a message of wisdom, but to another a message of knowledge by the same Spirit.

    Greek logo” (logos) = word, message, with emphasis on underlying thought

    I think it would be better not to regard these gifts as a single word or small number of words heard through revelation as it is often used. Doubtless God can speak through that means, but this would be better thought of as a gifting of understanding or wisdom to the person, while the revelation of one word, or any number of words is covered by the gift of prophecy.

    One problem that comes through misunderstanding this type of revelation is that some treat words of knowledge as a sort of “prophecy lite” in which we can claim to have received revelation and spoken without undertaken the duty or burden of a prophet. It would be better to see all speech which claims its source in God as prophecy, no matter how the revelation is received.

    9To another faith by the same Spirit, but to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit.

    10To another is given the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another recognition of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another interpretation of tongues.

    11But one and the same Spirit accomplishes all of these things, dividing them up as He wills.

    CEV: “11But it is the Spirit who does all this and decides which gifts to give to each of us.”?

    Emphasis is again placed on the “one”? spirit and on the spirit’s choice. We still have not seen any development of the idea of discernment or of ranking the spirits.

    The body metaphor is commonly seen as illustrating how the various gifts are to work together in the church. I would suggest that instead, Paul is using the necessity of the various gifts as an illustration of how the body should work together. Part of the intention is correction of how the Corinthian believers regard and use the gifts, but the larger issue at hand is believers who claim different levels of spirituality for whatever reason. Paul is here building a basis for discernment and for unity of the church, whatever the source of divisions may be.

    The Body Metaphor

    The topic here is unity. As the body has many parts, differing in apparent honor, yet all necessary, so the church has many members with a variety of gifts, and all need to work together.

    12Because just as the body is one but has many parts, and all the body’s parts are one body, so it is with Christ.

    13For you were all baptized by one Spirit into one body, whether you were Jews or gentiles, slaves or free before, and all of you have drunk of one Spirit.

    Note that when Paul discusses who is brought into the body it is not their gifts that he emphasizes but their physical and spiritual origin. All, no matter where they came from become one body.

    Verses 12-26 deal with our starting point, rather than with our gifts.

    “Drink of one spirit”? means that though we come from diverse backgrounds we become one body with one spirit and collectively receive the gifts necessary for the body.

    I recommend reading the latter part of this chapter from the CEV for an overview: 1 Corinthians 12:12-27.

    14For the body is also not one part, but many.

    15If the foot should say, “Because I am not the hand, I am not part of the body, that wouldn’t make it not a part of the body, would it?

    16And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I am not part of the body, that wouldn’t mean it was not part of the body, would it?”

    17If all the body was an I, what would happen to hearing? If the whole body was hearing, what about smell?

    18But now God has placed each of the parts one by one in the body in just the way he wanted to.

    19But if all were one part, where would the body be?

    20But now there are many parts, but one body.

    21The eye can’t say to the hand, “I have no need of you!” or again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you!”

    22But the parts of the body that are weaker are so much more necessary,

    23And the ones that are thought of no honor are treated with even greater honor, and those that are least attractive are given greater attractiveness,

    24but our more respectable parts don’t need this honor. But God has so arranged the body so that those parts that lack it get greater honor.

    25He does this so that there might not be any factions in the body but that the various parts might care for one another as themselves.

    Verse 25 declares part of the purpose of the whole. This will be expanded in 13 and 14.

    26And if one part suffers, all the parts suffer along with it. If one part is given special glory, all the parts rejoice with it.

    Nobody has All Gifts

    In the background here is the idea that nobody is independent, nobody is purely spiritual so as to be able to ignore the rest of the body. Those who claim all offices and all gifts should take note. I do not regard it as impossible for God to call someone to all the offices at once, though I regard it as extremely unlikely. One person carrying all the gifts or all the offices contradicts the way in which god wants to work with his church.

    27Now you are the body of Christ, and members of it.

    28And God has placed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, help and guidance, varieties of tongues.

    Greek tiqhmi (tithemi) = put or placed

    Here Paul reintroduces the topic of gifts, these members, who come in from different backgrounds and with different spiritual standing are brought into the unity of the body, and then God appoints

    I prefer the translation “placed” as opposed to “appointed” in verse 28, because it emphasizes that it is God who is bringing together the gifts. Due to the nature of Paul’s criticism, I believe that some members of the body in Corinth were determining their level of spiritual maturity by the level of their gifts. Paul is saying here that God brought people of all different ranks and stations, whether spiritual or temporal, and then that God put certain gifts in the body as he chose. The level of gifts should be divorced from the level of spirituality.

    29Not all are apostles, are they? Not all are prophets, are they? Not all are teachers, are they? Not all work miracles, do they?

    30Not all have gifts of healing, do they? Not all speak in tongues, do they? Not all interpret, do they?

    The mixture of ministries, activities and gifts is intentional, showing that none of these lists are intended to be exhaustive.

    These questions again emphasize the God-given nature of the gifts. If gifts were indicative of spiritual stature, then one would expect all those of a particular spiritual stature to attain certain “higher” gifts. But if the gifts are given by God as needed by the church, then this would not be the case. So not everyone gets any particular gift, but all are gifted as needed.

    31But you are seeking the better gifts.

    Compare NRSV: “31. But strive for the greater gifts.” This translates as an imperative, rather than indicative, which is the majority view. However, I disagree.

    Paul is not suggesting that they should strive for the greater gifts. There is a certain amount of sarcasm. Paul has just shown no ranking of gifts. He has detached gifts from spiritual standing. He has detached all the visible activities of the Spirit from spiritual standing. What exactly could he mean by “Strive for the greater gifts”? In fact he is pointing out that despite the fact that God gives these according to his will, and that they are there according to the need of the body and not according to various peoples’ spiritual standing, the Corinthian believers are striving for them. So now Paul has to show them how to truly discern spirituality.

  • Paying for Education: Class Size

    In 2002 Florida voters approved an amendment ordering the state to reduce class size. As with so many such amendments, the state was left to look for a way to provide the teachers and pay them. The story in my home county, Escambia, and in neighboring Santa Rosa county is in today’s Pensacola News-Journal. In a fit of journalistic optimism, it’s titled New teachers filling void, but the bottom line is that the local schools have a bit of a problem filling the necessary teaching slots with qualified people.

    Some of the available solutions are good, such as providing an accelerated pathway for people with degrees, but who are not certified in education. But a great deal will have to be done to fill these classrooms with teachers who will help prepare our young people to be productive citizens.

    And that puts the burden back on the voters. Will we pay for this? It’s a good thing; we voted to mandate it. Will we be as responsible when we find out that smaller classes cost more money?

    I’m firmly convinced that the results will be worth it.

  • Innovative Health Care Option

    For years, ever since I first heard of nurse practitioners and physician’s assistants, I have thought that our health care profession could be improved by using less expensive–but not necessarily less effective–professionals to provide primary care. Now, in an article Want Treatment With Those Pills?, Newsweek is describing just such a revolution in progress. Small, walk-in clinics staffed mostly by nurse-practitioners, are popping up all over the place. What they provide is more consumer oriented medicine, including greater convenience, better service, and lower prices.

    Right now the target is primarily those without insurance, for whom the lower cost is the focus. But one clinic, according to Newsweek, reports that more than half of its patients are insured. Quoting the article:

    “The time for this concept has come,” says Brian Jones, CEO of MedXpress, which is opening its first clinic this summer in Texas and expects to have 500 locations nationwide by 2010. “We expect this to be almost a revolution in terms of the delivery-care model,” he adds.

    I agree! I certainly hope that this will be a revolution in how health care is provided. Medical science continues to advance, so that physicians have to have more and more training just to get past the starting gate, and must spend a good deal of their time in maintaining their skills. A good thing, the improvement of medical treatment, becomes a negative because it makes simple treatment much more expensive. If I have a cold that seems a little more persistent than normal I have two options–delay treatment, or bite the bullet and pay the price, most likely just to be told that I have a cold, and have to wait it out.

    Now in my household, with a wife who is a Registered Nurse, and MD/RN parents who are a phone call away, I can often avoid the dilemna. But others don’t have the family resources I do. Because of high cost, they may delay treatment until things become much worse. With a nurse practitioner available, someone surely well-equipped to tell the patient whether their condition is routine or requires more complex handling, anyone can avoid these extra expenses. Most medical conditions don’t require the time of a specialist, and these can be handled much more effectively.

    With standards established for electronic medical records and the means of sending them quickly to a primary care physician’s office, referral can be quick and efficient. There is some discussion in the article of consultation and supervision by physicians, and that would provide an additional layer of safety, again using quick transfer of medical records and test results.

    I think this is a wonderful innovation, and I’m glad to see that it’s catching on in a big way. It doesn’t solve the problems of health care, especially for the uninsured, but it certainly helps. It will not only reduce the total bill for health care, but allow resources to be shifted from routine care to case where more complex care is needed.

  • 1 Corinthians 12-14 Greek Terms

    This entry provides further comment on Greek words used in my series of posts on 1 Corinthians 12-14. I’m posting this section prior to the entries on each of the three chapters so it will be available for study with them.

    Note: I am limiting my discussion of these words to their application related to this chapter. These should not be viewed as full discussions of each term. Consult one of the standard Greek lexicons for further information.

    diakonia (diakonia) = service

    One of the three categories in 1 Cor. 12:4-6. It occurs approximately 34 times in the New Testament, with the bulk of these (12) in 2 Corinthians along with 11 other times in the Pauline corpus. Of the remainder, 8 occur in Acts. Thus 31 of 34 times this word is used in the NT, it refers to the work of ministry as done in the early church. It is used in a negative context only once, in Luke 10:40, where Jesus chides Martha for being distracted by many tasks. It occurs only twice in 1 Corinthians itself, one of them here, and the other in 16:15 where the family of Stephanus is commended for devoting themselves to the service of the saints.

    It is used in the New Testament to denote a variety of types of ministry, including evangelism (Acts 21:19), charitable work (Acts 6:1), preaching or teaching (Acts 6:4), and to mission efforts such as Paul’s journeys (Acts 12:25). Paul uses the word in a number of different ways in 2 Corinthians, and one can see, especially in 2 Cor. 3:7-9 how the translation “administration” might come through. The core idea, however, is service, or something accomplished for someone else through an activity. Even in the case where it is used to refer to the activity of the law, of the Spirit, and of justification (2 Cor. 3:7-9) it is the action as it impacts the recipients that Paul has in view.

    In our literature, it is simply this variety which Paul has in view. Many different services are performed, but all are under the same Lord.

    (See also carisma and energhma.)

    elpis and elpizw (elpis and elpizô) = hope

    Includes the idea of “expectation.” If one hopes in someone then one expects some particular result (1 Corinthians 15:9). These two words tie chapters 12-14 to the hope of the resurrection in chapter 15, the ultimate spiritual maturity to which the believer aims.

    energhma (energêma) = activity

    Occurs only twice in the New Testament, both in this chapter. It refers to the activity involved in accomplishing some goal, though I think Paul may be looking past the term “activity” to the etymology of the word which would suggest the power behind the activity. Notice that he uses “energêmata dunameôn” to refer to the working of miracles. It is possible that he intends to call attention to the fact that the same underlying power works in all the activities as is involved in miracles. There is no distinction between the various forms of ministry in terms of source of power.

    logos (logos) = word, message, with emphasis on underlying thought.

    This word can refer to a wide variety of things, but its semantic range tends toward the broader message or underlying understanding. I am suggesting that Paul is using it here in a sense broader than “word” as a single word, but rather to refer to the underlying understanding; that in the word of knowledge or wisdom God places within someone an understanding of divine knowledge and wisdom that goes beyond the ordinary in the sense of spiritual building.

    I do not intend this to deny that God can provide a word or phrase to someone as a form of revelation, in the common use of the gift of words of knowledge, but I would tend to cover this revelation under the gift of prophecy, which has, after all, involved persons receiving a word or words from God for as long as the gift has been known

    nhpios (nêpios) = infant

    Used of immaturity or a lack of complete spirituality in contrast to anhr and teleio”.

    pneumatikos, pneumatikw” (pneumatikos, pneumatikôs) = spiritual, in a spiritual manner

    The word pneumatikos occurs 26 times in the New Testament, with all but two of them being in the Pauline corpus (the remaining two are in 1 Peter 2:5). It is predominantly used to contrast spiritual things with carnal things, and is most commonly used as an adjective. It is also used of the post-resurrection body which is described as “spiritual.” Paul also uses it twice with reference to spiritual matters in general—Romans 15:27 and 1 Corinthians 9:11. In one case Paul clearly uses the term “spiritual gift,” but in that case he uses pneumatikos as an adjective along with the noun xarisma (Romans 1:11).

    There are two disputed cases of the use of the word, first in 1 Corinthians 12:1 and then again in 1 Corinthians 14:1. Many commentators suggest that 12:1 be translated “spiritual things” or “spiritual persons” but of the modern translations only one, The Message, supports this type of translation. Amongst the ancient versions, the Vulgate and the Syriac (Peshitta) do not use “gifts” in 12:1 and only the Vulgate does not do so in 14:1. Unfortunately, Latin is capable of the same construction as the Greek here, using only the adjective without providing a separate substantive, and thus provides weak support for not using the word “gifts” at best.

    Nonetheless I suggest that pneumatikos be translated “spiritual matters” or “spiritual persons” (my preference being the former) on the following grounds:

    1. The only cases in which the word is translated gifts are in the two passages in dispute.
    2. There are numerous other occasions in which pneumatikov could be used on its own to denote spiritual gifts, or could be used as an adjective with xarisma, but in no case is it used in an undisputed passage, and only once is it used as an adjective in combination with xarisma.
    3. In the only case (noted above) in which Paul is clearly intending to refer to spiritual gift(s), he uses the substantive xarisma.
    4. In 1 Corinthians 12:1, when Paul says he wants the Corinthian believers not to be ignorant about pneumatika he doesn’t immediately speak about gifts, and when he does, he does so in a context with a number of other spiritual issues, including ministry and activity (12:4-6) and the place or position from which the believers have been brought (12:12 & 14). In fact, the majority of 1 Corinthians 12 is not speaking about spiritual gifts, but rather about the unity of the body irrespective of the source of the individual believers. Chapter 12 builds into 13, in which each member of the body doesn’t seek his or her own (13:5).
    5. In chapter 14, which seems most clearly to call for us to supply the substantive “gift” I think we should resist the temptation, because here Paul is using the gifts not as the actual goal, but as an illustration of how we use our spirituality. He will talk about praise, teaching, order and worship as he proceeds through chapter 14, but the object of the discussion is not the gifts, but rather illustrating true spirituality by means of discussing the way in which the various gifts are used.

    pneumatikws is used only twice, but reinforces the use of pneumatikos in connection with spiritual matters, referring to the discernment of spiritual issues (1 Corinthians 2:14). The other usage is in Revelation.

    pneuma (pneuma) = spirit

    I will deal here only with the use in 1 Corinthians 14:12, where I think that it should be translated “spiritual state of mind” (Bauer Arndt and Gingrich definition 3c). I suggest the translation:” In this way also you, if you are zealous to be in a spiritual state of mind, seek that you may have an abundance of what leads to building up the church.” (See also my note at 14:12.)

    fanerwsis, fanerow, fanerw” (phanerôsis, phaneroô, phanerôs) = bringing to light or disclosure

    This word means simply that which is shown openly or is visible. The “phanerosis” of the Spirit is that which shows physically that the spirit is present and active. This is not a special revelation or revealing (apokaluyiv), nor a pointing out (deiknumi) but simply the visible part of the Spirit’s working. Note that this is not how the Spirit is discerned; discernment is one of the gifts which constitute a part of the Spirit’s fanerwsi”.

    teleios (teleios) = perfect or mature

    Used largely in 1 Corinthians in contrast to nhpio”, dealing with maturity. Paul uses anhr almost as a synonym. I believe that teleios is used of the fully spiritual, as exemplified by the spiritual or renewed body (1 Cor. 15:44). The word teleios in 13:10 refers to this coming of the perfect spirituality when, rather than having flesh opposed to spirit we are all changed in an instant and become totally spiritual.

    carisma (charisma) = gift

    This term, closely related to cari” occurs 17 times in the New Testament, 16 of them in the Pauline corpus. Of those occurrences, all but four refer to some kind of gifting for ministry. (I would place the usage in Romans 11:29 as referring to the gift of God’s calling rather than any specific gift.) carisma is only used once in connection with the word “spiritual” (Romans 1:11) and in that context it is not at all clear that it is referring to “gifts” in the same same sense as 1 Corinthians 12, but rather is speaking of the teaching about the grace of God which Paul would impart through his letter or the personal teaching he hoped to have the opportunity to present.

    See also pneumatikos, pneumatikw”.

  • 1 Corinthians 12-14

    These three chapters are the most critical chapters in the Bible in reference to spiritual gifts, and they are not actually primarily intended to teach about them. We tend to read the three chapters separately, especially because 1 Corinthians 13 is such a wonderful composition by itself. Chapter 12 is often treated as an essay on gifts, 13 on love, and 14 on order in the church service. But the three are intended to go together as a unit, and that unit fits into the overall theme of the book of 1 Corinthians.

    Paul is dealing with the problems in the church at Corinth. They have become divided, and the main cause is spiritual pride based on various distinctions in the church. In these three chapters Paul talks first about unity, illustrated by the fact that all the gifts are needed, yet they are divided amongst the member of the church. The church needs to work together in order to make all the gifts available. Spirituality is determined not by which gift a member has, but rather by the fact that they work under the control of one spirit, the Holy Spirit.

    The test for the Spirit at work is then covered in 1 Corinthians 13, which tells us about love. The one Spirit works in accordance with love. (I discussed this same test from another perspective in my post Complementarian Translation.) Chapter 14 continues this thought by showing how the gifts would display themselves in public worship in accordance with the principles already described.

    In several posts following this one I’m going to present some notes on 1 Corinthians 12-14 and also on other passages related to the gifts of the Spirit. I won’t provide a directory here. To find all the posts look at category 1 Corinthians.

    (Added May 17, 2018)

    Follow-up notes:

    1 Corinthians 12-14 Greek Terms

    Notes on 1 Corinthians 12

    Notes on 1 Corinthians 13

    1 Corinthians 14

    Background:

    An Alternative Outline for 1 Corinthians

  • Fear and Human-Animal Hybrids

    In an article titled Raising Beast People, subtitled “Science is blurring the line between humans and animals, Lee Silver has pointed to some of the aspects of science that raise our greatest fears. All of the science fiction stories of humans turning into monsters, all the stories of alien interventions, and all of our nightmares are brought to the surface by the kind of research described by this article.

    The main subject of the story is some mice. Biologist Fred Gage is experimenting on these mice to learn about how human neurons degrade or die as in Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s syndromes. As silver says,

    Inside their brains are living human neurons that help them to see, hear and think.

    And there the fear awakens. As we’ve watched various horror movies that involve humans being slowly changed into some horrifying monsters, or animals becoming intelligent, but remaining basically hostile, we’ve had that certain knowledge that what we were watching was imaginary, that science would never progress to the point where it could do what we imagined. But science keeps on progressing, and there’s no end in sight to the possibilities of genetic research.

    Quoting Silver again:

    Many people, however, are deeply disturbed by this research. U.S. President George W. Bush believes that scientists like Gage have stepped across a moral line that must be defended, even at the cost of biomedical progress. In his 2006 State of the Union address, he implored Congress to “pass legislation to prohibit the most egregious abuses of medical research [including] creating human-animal hybrids,” because “human life is a gift from our Creator” that should never be “devalued.”

    “Deeply disturbed” may be an understatement. But I think that President Bush is going overboard by suggesting that this kind of research devalues human life, or lessens the gift of life from the creator. Each new scientific discovery, especially in biology, makes some people nervous. There have been repeated fears that just around the corner there would be some scientific discovery that would take us that one step too far, and have us stepping over some unknown boundary set by the creator.

    I’m not particularly overjoyed by the sound of this type of research, but I think that my visceral reaction is one that is emotional, and not based on reflection. It’s the “ooh ish” reaction of someone seeing an autopsy for the first time. It’s not that the autopsy is actually dangerous, or that it is more threatening than many other things. It’s just that it gets to some of our most basic emotional reactions. Human organs growing in test tubes just don’t seem, well, nice.

    I would suggest two things. First, this is not the most threatening scientific discovery that we’ve made recently. If I thought anything would step over some invisible boundary set by God, I would suggest it would be the invention of the atomic bomb and its successors. Human beings have been managing the capacity to destroy all life many times over for several decades. Even now, when the cold war is over, and we could afford to destroy much of our arsenal, there is little effort made to do so. Why? We’ve grown used to it. It was done in secret and out of necessity, and we’ve simply gotten used to it. But in silos in the United States and Russia it’s still there.

    We’ve had to work on some standards, some ethics for living with nuclear weapons. Personally, I think we need to improve those standards considerably. The science was there. Once the science is there, someone is going to use it. The best thing to do is to learn how to make use of it and to live with it. We are not going to be able to prevent such knowledge from coming into existence.

    In the case of nuclear weapons it was the necessities of war. Now it’s the necessities of deteriorating human bodies. This science is going to happen, and in the end we’ll find a way to live with it. God’s glory will be undiminished, because after all he’s the source of all of it in any case. We’re going to be much better off working on reasonable safety standards and appropriate controls on this type of research so that it can be done as safely as possible.

    I’m not certain of all the ethics. I’m not an ethicist. Bioethicists need to look at and discuss this. But we won’t prevent it. One more scary category of “thing” has come into the world, and we’re going to learn to live with it. Set aside the fear, think constructively, and move forward. Otherwise the world will do so without you.

  • Complementarian Translation?

    Peter Kirk has writtten that he finds a complementarian bias in the TNIV. He says:

    A major aim of the changes made in Today’s New International Version (TNIV) was to avoid the danger of such misunderstandings. I don’t think anyone can complain about TNIV’s rendering of 2 Thessalonians 3:10: “Anyone who is unwilling to work shall not eat.” This is after all closer to KJV’s “if any would not work, neither should he eat”, and it avoids any possible misunderstanding that this applies only to males.

    However, TNIV does not always make such changes. For example, in Titus 1:6 TNIV has “a man whose children believe”, in this phrase identical to NIV. But there is no word here to be translated “man”; the Greek is tekna ekh

  • Why I Like the REB

    A friend recently e-mailed with the following request: Tell me why you like the REB.

    First let me qualify what I mean by liking a translation. There are many factors that go into making a translation suitable for a particular purpose or person. Without knowing that context, it’s impossible to give a meaningful answer to the question, “What is the best translation?” In this case, however, we’re talking about what I like, and so I can speak freely. I just want readers to know that I’m talking about personal preferences here, and not about some kind of public standards.

    I use the REB as a serious reading Bible. That means that in my study it comes at the top of the list of those Bibles I use when I am not studying the Bible from Greek or Hebrew, but I want to do serious reading. To put this in context, I would use the NRSV when I want a translation that follows the form of the source languages rather closely, and the CEV when I want to read rapidly to get an overview with less concern for details.

    The REB fits that purpose for me because it:

    • Has language that is easily readable for me, but nonetheless doesn’t sound like it has been simplified. It holds my attention and doesn’t jar me with excessively short sentences, abrupt breaks, or long phrases expressing relatively simple thoughts.
    • Has a faintly British flavor. I spent my teen years in Guyana, formerly a British colony, and I find some British English attractive in reading.
    • I am almost always comfortable with the textual choices. That means I can be comfortable that I’m getting a reliable text.
    • The translation included interfaith cooperation which improves its value for reading.
    • I regard its presentation of Hebrew poetry is one of the best. (The The New Jerusalem Bible provides some good competition.
    • I enjoy the sound of the REB read aloud. It has a literary feel and a good flow. My selfish view is that it’s too bad more American audiences are not attuned to it. I’d love to hear it for scripture readings!
    • Despite the fact that I support efforts to use gender neutral phrasing where possible, as the NRSV does, my ears are a generation older than that, and I’m more comfortable with the less aggressive uses of gender language in the REB.

    I can’t call it the best translation for everyone, but it has become a constant part of my own program of Bible study and my own devotional life.

    (For more information on various translations, see my Bible Translation Selection Tool.)

  • Drawing the Boundaries of Translation

    A frequent criticism of The Message or The Living Bible is that they are not really translations, but rather paraphrases, and thus should not be regarded as Bibles. Often “translation” is contrasted to “paraphrase” almost as though the two are antonyms. Others draw the boundaries in a much narrower way, calling translations like the Good News Bible “paraphrases” so as to discredit them as real translations.

    I’ve been thinking of this recently, and I’m beginning to change my mind somewhat. I’ve been sympathetic to the use of “paraphrase” as part of the vocabulary in discussing Bible translations, even in the colloquial sense of “loose translation.” The term gives one a title to use regarding translations that seem very loose to us.

    The boundary between interpretation and translation has already been eliminated to a large extent. Translators certainly recognize that a translator does interpret, and the general public is becoming more aware of this factor of translation. Understanding is interpreting, and a translator can hardly express and understanding of the text without engaging in interpretation. At the other end of the spectrum, there is no real boundary between those versions called paraphrases and those called translations. The difference is really a matter of degree. How much freedom does the translator allow himself from the form and structure of the text in the source language while he endeavors to convey the message? There is no boundary at which the translator steps from no freedom over to no attachment to the text at all. It is a continuum.

    I’ve said all of this before, and have been criticized for calling “paraphrases” translations. But recently I’ve been thinking more radically. I’m beginning to believe that even more of our boundaries between “teaching” and “translation” are arbitrary. One of the tools I use in teaching is a video tape produced by the American Bible Society that is a multimedia presentation of the story of Jesus and the Gerasene Demoniac (Mark 5). Is this a translation? Well, the words of the Bible passage are narrated over the sights and sounds of the video, but much of the message is conveyed in ways other than words. Nonetheless, I would call it a translation.

    I experimented with the idea of transferring a story or passage into another form over on my poetry and fiction blog, or better my “write whatever I think is fun and don’t worry about the consequences blog.” 🙂 I produced a form of the story of Susanna (Daniel 13 in the apocrypha). Is the form of the story itself significant? To a certain extent, yes. But at the same time the form of the story is different from what would be expected of a modern short story. I’ve experimented with telling it with the main character, Daniel, present throughout the story. This may be easier to take for those who don’t regard the apocrypha as inspired, but I like the thought of presenting Bible stories in modern terms.

    The doctrine of inspiration, in whatever form, can actually get in the way of conveying the message. Perhaps it would be useful to be concerned first with what message a particular form conveys, and only secondarily with whether or not it is “a Bible.” I appreciate the large numbers of creative ways of conveying the message of scripture that various people are producing.