Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Mission and Prosperity

    In God’s economy, there is never prosperity without mission.

    I’ve been thinking about this in the last few days in connection with a number of issues, and I think it is a scriptural principle. I think you can replace “prosperity” with other terms of blessing, such as peace, joy, and fulfilment. This is where, in my opinion, modern prosperity preachers are missing the point. It’s not that they don’t mention mission, it’s that they put prosperity in the first place, and then mission follows after. I believe God puts mission first.

    Is this Biblical? Let’s look at a few examples.

    Many of my friends frequently remind me to “pray for the peace of Jerusalem” (Psalm 122:6). Now I don’t want to diminish in any way the need to pray for the peace of Jerusalem. But there is some baggage that comes along here. Read the rest of Psalm 122. You will find there a call for worship, a call for obedience, a call to carry out justice, and the call for prayer itself is aimed directly at the house of God and the presence of God. Mission is implicit throughout the passage. This is not an either/or situation. The peace of Jerusalem does not occur in scripture without justice and righteousness in Jerusalem.

    But as gentile Christians, we need to look just a little further out. This Psalm calls upon us to preserve centers of worship, to be glad to go into the presence of God, and to aim our prayers in that direction. Don’t miss the physical Jerusalem over in Israel, but don’t miss the presence of God here and now either.

    A friend once told me that praying for Jerusalem was a way to get a cheap blessing. But I don’t think there is such a thing as cheap blessing. The blessing has to go with commitment. A friend of mine passed a way a couple of years ago. She was a friend of Israel, and definitely prayed for the peace of Jerusalem. One time when she returned from Israel she came back with a new understanding and sympathy for the Palestinians as well. Her love of Israel was undiminished, but God had made a place in her heart for someone more. I could sense the blessing and the anointing that resulted from that growth. Her prayers were not cheap prayers, nor were they a means to an end. She not only prayed for the peace of Jerusalem, she invested heart and soul, time and money in it.

    Some may think the mission in Psalm 122, as clearly as I see it, is not so clear. Let’s look at a couple more passages from the time of the exile. Isaiah announced:

    ?6? I am the Lord, I have called you in righteousness,
    I have taken you by the hand and kept you;
    I have given you as a covenant to the people,?a?
    a light to the nations,
    ?7? to open the eyes that are blind,
    to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon,
    from the prison those who sit in darkness.
    ?8? I am the Lord, that is my name;
    my glory I give to no other,
    nor my praise to idols.
    ?9? See, the former things have come to pass,
    and new things I now declare;
    before they spring forth,
    I tell you of them.

    Isaiah 42:6 (NRSV)

    Note the call and the covenant are brought in a context of mission. God affirmed the same thing through Ezekiel when he said:

    Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord God: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations to which you came. — Ezekiel 36:22

    I commend all of Ezekiel 36 to you to read.

    But why should this be at all surprising? The concept goes back to Abraham who is told that God will bless him and that he will be a blessing. From that first call, blessing came with mission, and mission was the focus of blessing.

    Jesus expressed the same concept when he said:

    First look for God’s kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. — Matthew 6:33

    Notice the focus! Mission is at the center, and “all these things” follow from mission.

    If you are praying for peace, prosperity, joy, or any blessing, and feel that you are not receiving it, perhaps you need to consider two possibilities. First, God may be working on you, preparing you for mission. With him, the kingdom comes first. But second, it may be possible that you haven’t gotten the mission, you haven’t gotten the vision, and thus the blessings can’t follow. God isn’t going to give you the blessings of a great and powerful mission for you to hoard.

    Get the mission, catch the vision, the blessings follow.

  • KJV Only: Anatomy of an Argument

    Recently I’ve talked a fair amount about using numbers as a means to dress up lies and make them look more respectable. I even discussed the issue in a Sunday School class I was invited to teach last Sunday, using the various ways in which grocery (or any) prices and sales can be stated and how those various ways can be used to deceive the consumer into buying something more expensive while thinking he’s getting a bargain.

    (As an exercise, if you’re not sure you understand this idea, make a list of all the ways in which prices and specials on particular items are stated. Your list should include things like 1/2 off, 20% off, $x.xx off, 2 for the price of one, buy one/get one free, and so forth. Then think about how these numbers might be used to make the price of any particular item look better. The bottom line is that you have to bring all prices into relation to a single standard by calculating a price per unit, thus comparing the actual value you’re getting. You do have to be careful with the units used as well. I found myself comparing the price on two rolls of packing tape, one was $3.47 for 54 yards, and the other was $2.38 for 60 meters. You should be able to do that one on sight! Now consider that when people present statistical arguments to you, they have more ways even than the grocer does to make the numbers appear the way they want them to, all without actually telling a direct lie.)

    It’s interesting that just as I’m writing about numbers, I get an e-mail in response to my Bible Translations FAQ that brilliantly illustrates precisely the type of misdirection and lying with numbers that I’ve been talking about.

    The e-mail consisted of a text, badly abused, followed by a table of numbers, followed by a paragraph containing his challenge. I’m going to look at the last paragraph first. The correspondent identified himself simply only by his initials, so I’m going to call him C, for correspondent.

    C states:

    So, as you have so aptly put it in some of your responses to others, “Them’s just the facts”.

    Well, no, them’s just the lies, as I will show below. Claiming something is a fact doesn’t make it one.

    Let’s see you include this e-mail to your web site section on “KJV Bible Translations FAQ”;

    I’ll include a link to this blog entry. How’s that?

    if you truely don’t have a hatred for the KJV (as you’ve stated), then you would have no problem presenting the facts as they stand, without your commentary, and let the reader decide for themselves based on the factual evidence!

    My rejection of your arguments has nothing to do with hating the KJV; it has to do with the fact that your “facts” are wrong, and your logic incorrect. You would, of course, like me to post your table without my commentary, because falsehood hates the light. You know that any commentary on your table will show it to have no evidentiary value whatsoever. The only hope you have for such arguments to work is that people who don’t know better will read it quickly and think the numbers and your assurance in presenting them is impressive in themselves. You absolutely can’t afford to have anyone think about your little number table.

    I sure hope this e-mail contains enough “substance” worthy of your response!

    Actually, your argument is simply a repetition of the argument I answered in my Bible Translations FAQ, #12, based on the majority of the manuscripts. The only reason I’m responding to it is because you provide such an excellent example of abuse of numbers in making an argument.

    Concerned for the lost,

    Bluntly, I doubt it. If you were concerned for the lost, you would likely be more interested in the gospel message and less interested in the support of a nearly 400 year old Bible translation that now more often than not stands in the way of people who want to understand the Bible. The KJV Only position is not a position that honors the word of God. It is not “Bible believing.” It is man serving in two ways: First, because it elevates the work of human beings–a translation–into the position of God’s actual word, and second because it serves primarily to support the positions of spiritual power of its advocates over others. It is destructive spiritually and intellectually.

    Now, let’s look at the table:

    The KJV Greek Text Attested by the Evidence

    Manuscripts

    Total

    WH/TR

    %MSS
    WH/TR

    Papyrus

    81(88)

    13/75

    15%/85%

    Uncials

    267

    9/258

    3%/97%

    Cursives

    2764

    23/2741

    1%/99%

    Lectionaries

    2143

    0/2143

    0%/100%

    Totals

    5255

    45/5210

    1%/99%

    Now let’s consider this chart briefly. I’m not going to deal with the actual numbers, though there appear to be some errors there. For example, it is quite doubtful that the editors of the Textus Receptus actually consulted 2143 lectionaries. But even if all of these numbers were correct, the chart as it is would convey a lie. Numbers require a context; they do not have independent meaning. In this case, the numbers are tabulated so as to suggest that many less manuscripts were used in producing the Westcott & Hort text than in producing the Textus Receptus (TR), and the TR is inturn equated to the KJV Greek text. In some way, not stated, this is supposed to convince us that the KJV text is correct.

    No reference is given for these numbers, but one is quite easy to locate. A google search provides us with The Bible Believer’s Baptist web site has their Bible Tidbit #65: Westcott & Hort which is itself a disgusting ad hominem attack, contains such a chart, and they reference it to THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE BIBLE AND CHRISTIANITY without providing further information. This tactic is used by KJV Only advocates to make their arguments look more respectable–after all, the source is an encyclopedia. But a little more checking leads us to the encyclopedia web site, The Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible and Christianity. Here we discover of this “encyclopedia” that:

    “It is the only Bible dictionary/encyclopedia that is written by a Fundamental Baptist and based strictly upon the King James Bible.”

    and

    It does not correct the Authorized Version of the Bible . . .

    So it is a KJV Only advocates encyclopedia, giving them a respectable sounding reference for misinformation–and this chart is definitely misinformation.

    Here are the issues with the context and presentation of these numbers:

    1. What does it mean to “use” a manuscript? We are told how many manuscripts were used by the editors of each text, but we are not told what is meant by this. I am not nitpicking here. As an undergraduate, I had to produce a critical text of a passage working solely from available manuscript photocopies and collations. I worked with about a dozen manuscripts, and based on my knowledge of family relationships and so forth was able to produce a reasonably accurate text, certainly better than the TR. Does “use” mean simply to have them around? Does it mean to examine each reading in each one? Do you “use” a manuscript when you reject its reading, or does only acceptance of a reading count as using? Clearly, we don’t know what these numbers represent. This in itself would render the chart useless as evidence. But there’s more.
    2. The TR is equated to the Greek text of the KJV. It would be easy to claim that the two are “close enough” because they are, indeed, very close. And yet we’re dealing here with KJV Only advocates, who believe that any deviation is too much. Thus the equation of the TR is deceptive.
    3. There is an implication that the TR is based on the majority of the manuscripts, and thus is equivalent to the majority text–a text based simply on counting manuscripts. But this too is false. The KJV includes the long text of 1 John 5:7-8, for example, which is definitely a minority reading, and is also definitely a significant variant, and yet a consistent majority text would have to exclude that passage.
    4. Why is the Westcott and Hort text being used in comparison at all? Westcott and Hort advanced knowledge of the Biblical text and were pioneers of modern textual criticism, and yet almost nobody actually uses their text any more. Go to any Christian bookstore, and you will not find any version produced within the last century that uses the Westcott and Hort text. Besides the simple fact that the text criticized is not the one used in preparing modern versions, this particular piece of misdirection prevents people from checking the numbers as easily. The United Bible Societies 4th edition, commonly used as a starting point by modern translators lists 69 lectionaries, for example. Anyone who understands the study of textual criticism will realize that 69 lectionaries is actually a substantial survey, provided these are chosen from different text groups.
    5. Finally, why is it that one should be concerned simply with the number of manuscripts? That is the implication of the chart. It suggests that modern versions are using a minority of manuscripts, and that this practice is bad. But the simple fact is that the more time that passes between the writing of the autograph and the creation of a copy, the more likely it is that manuscript generations have passed. This is not the only criterion in determining which is a better manuscript, but it is a very important one, and one which makes the entire chart completely ridiculous. Manuscripts are not equal, and because of the nature of manuscripts–they decay–the majority of manuscripts are relatively recent. We only have a few manuscripts from the first few centuries of Christian history

    All this chart does is wrap the respectability of numbers around a much repeated lie. If you stop and examine the numbers, and consider what they actually mean, you will find that these “facts” do not convey what their author has dressed them up to convey. That is what you need to do with all deceptive numbers.

  • KJV Nostalgia and Standards

    Suzanne McCarthy, on the Better Bibles Blog has blogged somewhat about nostalgia for the KJV language and for the standard English Bible that was accepted by everyone in a post titled The 1611 King James Text. I like Suzanne’s work, and this is not intended as a critique of her comments, but she collects the various links quite nicely and I’m saving time (and being lazy) by linking to her and you can follow the rest from there. Besides, Better Bibles is a good blog for you to look at anyhow, and I have a list of posts there that I intended to comment on, but haven’t had time. (Hmmm! Having read this again, I want to repeat that nothing here is aimed at Suzanne’s post; I thank her for the convenient references and for her useful comments.)

    I want to examine briefly the key element that most of the nostalgia posts about the KJV have in common, which is the element of moral authority. In the past, the argument goes, there was the KJV which all regarded as a standard, and which was used to settle all arguments. This admirable (to some) state of affairs has now been shattered by the existence of multiple translations so that nobody is sure anymore what the Bible really says.

    This reminds me of a young man who came by our booth at a show where I was displaying my book, What’s in a Version?. His major question, repeated often through about a half an hour of discussion (it was a slow show) was this: “What is your absolute standard? Where do you have a book that you can hold in your hand and say, ‘This is the Word of God’?” What he wanted was something in English, accessible to him, that gave the absolute answers.

    The answer to his question is that no such book exists, no such standard exists, and none has ever existed.

    Previous generations may have been sure that they held the absolute one and only Word of God in their hands when they held their KJVs, and modern KJV only advocates may try to stand in their footprints, but they are both surely wrong! The fact is that even if we had only the KJV to guide us, there would remain substantial differences of interpretation. We might be pointing back at the same book, but we would not be getting the same standard things from it. But that’s not really the issue or the state of affairs.

    • When the autographs were penned, there was no Bible, there was just a collection of scrolls. There was no single book that one could hold and say, “This is the Word of God!”
    • When the New Testament canon was finally collected, the autographs were probably no longer in existence, and certainly not collected into a book. Differences between manuscripts, sometimes substantial, already existed. There was no single book that one could hold and say, “This is the Word of God!”
    • When the New Testament and the Hebrew scriptures (as the Old Testament) were first collected together into books, the version of the Old Testament used was a translation, and one of quite variable quality. There was no single book that one could hold and say, “This is the Word of God!”
    • When the KJV was translated, based on several earlier English versions, there were both numerous translation options in English, and numerous variations in the available manuscripts. There was no single book that one could hold and say, “This is the Word of God!”

    This search for the supposed “standard” in the form of a book is simply a search for security where none is available. There is no great benefit in being sure but wrong, as our ancestors were in regarding the KJV as the one authority. The weakness of that position is demonstrated by the collapse of that position when contrary evidence was discovered. Now there are many who thought that such assurance was available in Christianity give up because they find that it is not available. It was a false trust, and it failed because it was false. There is no benefit in trying to step back towards an imagined standard.

    Let me be blunt. I think the problem here is much the same as the problem with idolatry–we put our trust in something less than God. Stealing from Tillich, we make our ultimate concern the KJV, which is considerable less than ultimate, and thus fall into idolatry.

    In supporting this idolatry, we use the standard arguments of idolatry, which go back at least to Exodus 32. Moses is missing. We don’t know where God is. We need something to hold on to, we need assurance, we need a standard. So we make a calf.

    There is no such standard, indisputable, not subject to misinterpretation, easily accessible to everyone. It does not exist. Short of God, that is. Inventing an alternative is idolatry and is doomed to failure.

    God has given us minds. He has created and he sustains a universe that is susceptible to serious study using those minds. He has given us the Spirit of Truth, the Holy Spirit, as our guide, and he has provided the guidance of the past experience of those who were in communion with Him through the Bible. Now we just have to use the tools God has given us to make good, Godly decisions for our lives and for our communities.

    It’s not really that hard. But our natural human laziness asks God to provide us with clearer answers, ones that don’t take work. We are like a man provided with a stream filled with fish, rod, reel, hooks, and bait, who complains that he lacks fish because they won’t jump out into the pan. What God doesn’t provide we simulate, and because God knows that is our tendency he has forbidden us simulation as idolatry. He wants us to have the real thing.

    He could make us with finished characters, but he doesn’t. He lets us mature.

    14Solid food is for the mature, for those who through practice have exercised their understanding to distinguish good and evil. Hebrews 5:14 (from my project)

  • The Middle East: Solving and Appearing to Solve

    The headline today on MSNBC drew my attention back to the middle east after an overnight rest from it. It says: Israel targets Hezbollah strongholds in Beirut, which is, of course, no surprise due to the course of this conflict. In the narrow sense, this conflict is following the pattern of many before it. There are numerous attacks by guerillas–in this case Hezbollah–on Israeli targets. Israel retaliates. The conflict escalates until the international community finally gets mobilized into some semblance of action, after which all sides agree to put a bandaid over the problem.

    I’m not claiming to have a solution to the many problems of the middle east. One thing I do want to point out, however, is that only a very small number of people actually care to solve the problems, especially those involving the Palestinian people. What the world leaders want to do is to appear to provide a solution, hopefully one that will appear to work long enough for them to get people’s attention elsewhere. Other leaders are invested in having the problem there to distract from the very real problems of their own countries.

    Let’s face it. A real solution to this problem is going to involve several things, many of which the Arab countries don’t want to support, and some of which Israel doesn’t want to support. The west, I’m sorry to say, seems to find any solution acceptable that keeps the violence off our TV screens. Palestinians can keep living in misery and dying, and Israelis can continue to live under constant threat and also die, just as long as they do it quietly and the supply of oil is not threatened.

    • Many Palestinians will never return to Palestine or live in Israel. They might as well plan to get assimilated wherever they are living. It’s nasty, but it’s a fact, and the sooner they start working on it, the sooner things will actually be solved.
    • Israelis need to give some on land–which they have–but also on rights and equal treatment of their Palestinian citizens. While it would not be practical for all Palestinians, both those displaced in the various wars and their descendants, to return to Palestine, those who can and do return need to be treated with dignity and respect.
    • Arab countries need to control terrorist activity within their boundaries. That’s going to be hard. It’s going to be unpopular. But none of this works without a stable legal framework.
    • The west, especially the United States, needs to recognize that we cannot impose western style democracy and western values on Arab countries. I’m not saying that they are too immature or stupid for it, as though I can arrogantly impose a goal on them of becoming just like us. What I’m saying is that they are different, they are them and we are us, and we should accept that.

    The reason the problem is so intractable is that none of the parties are really ready to accept the elements that they need to accept. Palestinians do not want to give up the right, however impractical, of returning to Palestine, which they consider their home. Some Israelis and their Christian allies in the United States are anxious not to give up any of the “Biblical promised land,” and so oppose any land placed under the rule of the Palestinians. Other Israelis are not anxious to create a state in which the Palestinians are actually full citizens with equal rights, because in practice that is contrary to the Jewish state. In a Jewish state, non-Jews are not quite as equal as everyone else. Arab governments would generally prefer to keep their population’s anger focussed outward, and truly stepping on their terrorists would bring the anger on them. Further, many of them are in sympathy with the terrorists anyhow. The west, especially the United States doesn’t want to allow middle eastern countries to solve their own problems because they won’t solve them our way.

    In this way, in one paragraph I destroy my previous one paragraph solution. The motivation simply isn’t there to actually solve these problems. In the meantime, Lebanon continues to burn because they cannot control the activities of what is effectively a foreign army in their territority.

    Real peace won’t happen until all sides are willing to give something up, until peace becomes more important than the largely symbolic goals–this land versus that land and where precisely do we live.

    I tend to think we generally get what we really want, and in this case peace hasn’t come to the top of the priority list. In the meantime, politicians can continue to claim to want it, but the rest of us should watch what the politicians actually accomplish, not what they claim.

  • Creation and Evolution Summer Camps

    Summer camps to indoctrinate children on creationism? Look at this article: Beliefwatch: Camping.

    I certainly have no objection to churches teaching their beliefs at summer camp, and I congratulate the Unitarian-Universalist church on having a camp on discoveries in science. What I sincerely wish we would see would be a Christian camp that would teach about the variety of views of God’s creation that are held by Christians. This could be a unity building event, letting children know that Christians disagree on how God created, but we all agree that God didcreate, and that he is the creator.

    Such classes could help ease the current atmosphere in which a Christian who is serious about his or her faith is often beaten back to the peripheries by misguided people who believe only creationists, or in some cases even young earth creationists are really Christians.

  • Arguing from Authority

    Jason Rosenhouse (EvolutionBlog) has blogged about the authority (or lack of it) of mathematicians commenting on evolutionary theory in a series of two posts. Start reading with the first one, Are Mathematicians Qualified to Discuss Evolution, Part One, and follow along from there.

    The reason I’m calling attention to this particular entry is that many people struggle with the issue of authority, especially in regard to complex areas of study. I’ve found that in church work people often ridicule the authority of people with advanced degrees, while at the same time coveting, and actually giving too much authority to people with such degrees. The many diploma mills that hand out doctoral degrees, especially in the area of Bible study and theology demonstrate the desire to put “doctor” in front of one’s name, or to have a pastor for one’s church who does.

    Rosenhouse makes an excellent and very clear statement:

    But that doesn’t mean that a mathematician (or any non-biologist) is therefore forever excluded from discussing biology. It means simply that their professional training gives them no authority for doing so. Whether you should accord any weight to their pronouncements depends entirely on the specific arguments they make in defense of their views.

    I think that statement is exceptionally clear, though some of the commenters seem to have ignored that point. My field is Biblical studies. I can comment all I want on evolution, and readers of this blog know that I do, but my comments need to be evaluated on the merits of the individual arguments. I hope that I get these comments right. None of them are original, and I can normally point you to the book by an appropriate expert, but I do lack authority in that field.

    Ordinary people have to deal with this type of issue all the time. If experts are in disagreement, how do you make a determination? How do you find your way through the evidence?

    One way, of course, is through authority. You find lists of people who support your particular position, and then you follow the crowd. And if you select people who actually are experts in that field, and find the consensus position of such experts, then you will likely not go too far wrong.

    What’s interesting in the case of evolutionary theory is that we are presented constantly with lists of authorities, and it is the minority who are primarily making the argument from authority. Further, they often confuse the areas of expertise involved, as Rosenhouse notes in his post. Any number can be made to look impressive if you create a context designed entirely for that number. (Note here that I’m a non-expert commenting on mathematics, even in a very simple form.) We see this daily in advertising. A car is advertised at a “savings of $3,000.” Another is advertised at the “low, low price of $14,995.” What is the actual savings, or value, of each vehicle? Those numbers need to be placed in context. In the grocery store you have items for $0.50 off, “buy one, get one free,” “4 for $3.00,” “20% off,” and so forth. Those numbers aren’t selected randomly. The person doing the pricing uses the number that appears most impressive.

    Thus the Discovery Institute can claim 600 scientists skeptical of evolution, but in order to evaluate that number, even assuming that one wants to use an argument from authority, one needs to know a number of things. What fields are these scientists qualified in? What percentage of the experts in that field does the number of signatories constitute? What precisely were they asked to indicate by their signature? Without those elements of context, the numbers themselves will be either meaningless or misleading.

    So as a non-expert, what do I recommend? Well, my own approach, after growing up as a young earth creationist, was to start where I did have expertise, in Genesis 1-11 and archeology. I soon discovered that the young earth position was untenable even without considering geology. It may seem strange to evolutionists who started understanding geology, but I really had no concept of the age of the earth when I first rejected creationism. I simply knew that based on material on which I was qualified to comment, the young earth position must be wrong. All I said at the time was that the earth must be substantially older than 10,000 years.

    Since I had read an abundance of creationist literature, I then started to read material from experts on evolution, emphasizing informational material. Roadside geology guides accompanied me on a number of trips in the west. As I would try to recognize formations, and would then compare what I saw with the guide, I quickly realized that this was not something I would become an expert on. So how did I evaluate it?

    Here are the major points:

    1. The real numbers-what is the expert consensus. For a non-expert to go against the consensus of experts should require a substantial body of evidence, generally gleaned from dissenting experts. For an expert, of course, what is needed is solid evidence and research.
    2. What do they say about things I do know? If they comment on a topic on which I can comment with some authority, and do so incorrectly, then I begin to question the entire work. I recall reading a work on archeology by a mathematician. Within the first few pages I realized he was proposing calculations based on a level of accuracy of measurement that was simply not possible. For example, measuring something that is a hundred meters or so in length, and whose length includes an estimated portion (thickness of the covering of a wall when the covering no longer exists), and then using the resulting figure accurate to 4 decimal places is odd, at best!
    3. How well do they represent the positions and arguments of opponents. I found that creationists in general did not decently restate the arguments of evolutionary scientists. In fact, the entire picture of evolutionary theory I learned while growing up was not an accurate representation of evolutionary theory. I tend to doubt the word of someone who misrepresents–intentionally or through ignorance–something that I can easily check.
    4. Track back everything as close to the source as you can. There are practical limits based on the libraries available, how serious your interest is, and your knowledge of the field, but it is valuable to get as close to the person who found and cataloged the data. When the story changes as you get closer to the source, you know there’s a problem.

    These are just a few suggestions.

    One final note. For those who are interested in specifically avoiding mathematical deception, try one of the following: How to Lie with Statistics or Damned Lies and Statistics. Both will help you untangle the way in which numbers can be used to deceive you.

  • Anatomy of a KJV Only Argument

    I’ve pretty much quit bothering with the KJV only folks since their arguments are so repetitive. Yet occasionally I run across one that so illustrates the failings of this entire movement that I want to take the time to comment briefly. Of course, you all know already that I rarely comment briefly . . .

    The argument in this case comes from an article titled The Rudimentary Factor Underlying Infallibility by Jeffrey Nachimson, and relates to a comment made by Elgin Hushbeck, Jr. regarding the translation of John 5:44. Now the author of this article does not provide a useful reference to the material, other than author name, but a brief search of known material found Elgin’s material on this topic including the major arguments, though clearly the author of the attrocious article I am referencing was working from some other text.

    [For full disclosure, I need to note here that I am the publisher of Elgin’s book series Consider Christianity, but I would also note that the treatment given by av1611answers.com web site to other authors is no more fair or appropriate than what they use in this case.]

    First, the article begins in the usual KJV only manner by belittling all other Christians. I’m not going to quote it, but one can just follow the link and read the first couple of paragraphs to get the style. If you’ve read any substantial amount of KJV only material, you’re already acquainted with this procedure.

    Second, the article is one that deals with accusations of inaccuracies in the KJV. This is such an interesting approach for a KJV only advocate, because this article criticizes their own approach. Any logic to be discovered here will apply equally against the vast majority of KJV only arguments, which generally start with a list of errors they find in whatever modern version they wish to attack. The one and only constant with these arguments is that we know that the tortured logic must show that the KJV is right and all others are wrong. In response, opponents of the KJV only position occasionally present error lists of their own, demonstrating simply that the KJV translators were also human and suffered from the possibility of error. KJV only advocates, however, regard this as some form of slander against the KJV. That characterization is silly. Each and every critic, not of the KJV, but of the KJV only position, is aware that translators make errors. Only against a backdrop of a claim of infallibility for the KJV does it appear slanderous, but since neither the KJV translators, nor obviously the text of the KJV Bible itself claims this level of infallibility, it is hardly slander.

    Now if Nachimson cared about Hushbeck’s position, it was readily available. In his article Which Bible is the Word of God? he comments regarding a similar discussion concerning John 1:18, “If we were to follow the logic of the KJV-only supporters we would have to conclude that the translators of the KJV were trying to weaken the doctrine of the deity of Christ” (emphasis mine). Husbheck does not, in fact, believe that this kind of list of errors is the right way to deal with the problem. Rather, he is showing that the KJV is also vulnerable to that type of criticism. I would add, based on the same logic, that this approach to a translation can easily be taken as an attack on the Bible as a whole. If we find a characteristic that (1) destroys the validity of the Bible and (2) applies to all available Bibles (the KJV-only crowd do not accept the texts in their original language as authoritative), then the result is, in fact, to tear down the Bible.

    But let’s look at the argument itself before I comment further on its anatomy. It goes in this way:

    Nachimson says:

    Elgin Hushbeck, an engineer and apologetic writer, shows us what an engineering degree can do for the text of the King James Bible:

    Actually, while Elgin does have an engineering degree, he also has a master’s degree in Christian apologetics, and is the author of the apologetics series I referenced earlier. But what is the point here? Is it to suggest that engineers cannot possibly understand the Bible?

    Nachimson quotes Husbheck:

    ” The other type of problem involved poor translations. Translation is a difficult task and humans are not perfect. As a result, no translation the size of the Bible is perfect. While the King James Version is a good translation, it does have a few minor problems.

    Note here that even in the article quoted, and in the portion quoted by Nachimson Hushbeck makes his point extremely clear. He is simply pointing out something that true, and for which the evidence is overwhelming, namely that translations are not perfect. He is not slandering anything, nor is he claiming that one should abandon a translation because one finds such problems in it. He is simply pointing out to the KJV only advocates that their logic applies the other way as well. Note also that he notes that these are minor problems, something which can also be said at a minimum of most KJV only criticisms of modern versions.

    Nachimson quoting Hushbeck again:

    Again here are two examples: John 5:44 and Hebrews 10:23.In John 5:44 the Greek text very clearly reads “…and seek not the honor that comes from the only God.” Among other things this is a strong statement of monotheism. Yet for some reason the King James Version translates this as “and seek not the honor that cometh from God only?” Here any reference to monotheism is removed, and it becomes a statement that honor only comes from God. In Hebrews 10:23, the Greek text reads “let us hold fast the profession of our hope.” Yet the King James Version translates the Greek word for “hope” as “faith” and reads “let us hold fast the profession of our faith.” I have yet to hear of any explanation of either of these translations except that the King James Version translators must have known what they were doing. ” (Hushbeck, “King James Version Only” article)

    Note that I have provided a link to Nachimson’s article, something he has failed to do to Hushbeck’s.

    Nachimson now quotes the Greek text, notes that there is such a thing as an adjectival use of a prepositional phrase in Greek, and then agrees with Hushbeck on the literal translation. Those who want to follow this in detail can follow the link back to Nachimson’s article.

    But then he says:

    The problem with Elgin Hushbeck is that he failed to notice two things:

    1) That the context of the verse renders a literal adjectival translation of this passage senseless.

    Here let me drop down past his second point, which I will take up in a moment, to quote his discussion of this first point.

    Beginning in verse 30 in John 5, Jesus Christ discusses the plethora of witnesses that testify to his ministry and authority. He lists the testimony of John the Baptist (vs. 32-35); his works (vs. 36); the Father (vs. 37); the scriptures (vs. 39); and notice in verse 41 where Jesus Christ states exactly where he DOESN’T GET HIS HONOR FROM! Why the discussion is how to know if something or someone is from God, AND THE HONOR THAT ONLY GOD CAN GIVE! No one in this context bats an eye about monotheism! There isn’t an inclination anywhere in 47 verses that one person (including the lost Pharisees) is discussing the necessity of monotheism. For Hushbeck to conjecture that the A.V. rendering doesn’t uphold monotheism in the passage because it doesn’t translate the prepositional phrase as an adjective, is bordering on the realm of the absurd. The point is where do REAL testimonial witnesses and honor originate? REAL honor comes from God ONLY, not the only God.

    Umm, so where is his argument here? If the text says it comes from the only God, that’s what it says. And it is certainly not nonsense. In a world in which one might also seek honor from other gods, it was quite appropriate for Jesus to point out that this honor came from the one God. His Jewish audience would have had no difficulty with that. The point Nachimson claims Jesus is making here is just fine. But the translation chosen by modern versions is also just fine, it does make sense in context, and there is no reason for Nachimson to arbitrarily alter the text of the gospel of John here in order to support his favorite translation. Talk about amateur critics! (See below.)

    Now I return to add the second point:

    2) That there are other translational possibilities that he didn’t bother to look into or inform his readers due to his prejudicial bias against the King’s English.

    Where does Nachimson get the idea that Hushbeck has a “prejudicial bias against the King’s English.” Apparently he just felt the need to make up an insult. Of course I don’t have such a bias either, and yet I don’t speak “the King’s English” in daily life, I don’t preach in it, and I don’t need to use a Bible written in it. Nachimson gets the idea that others have such a bias because he has a completely irrational bias in favor of the English of the KJV, and thus any balanced perspective, such as one that approves such language in its place, appears to be a bias against it.

    Nevertheless, Hushbeck’s real problem is his ignorance of Greek grammar. Here I shall quote, “A Grammar of New Testament Greek,” by James Hope Moulton, Vol. III-Syntax, by Nigel Turner, pg. 225-226:

    “There is therefore not surprisingly some confusion of monos with the adv. monon: Mk 6:8- meden ei me rhabdon monon (D monen); Acts 11:19- medeni ei me monon (D monois) Ioudaiois; Heb. 12:26 OT seiso ou monon ten gen, alla kai…; 2 Tim. 4:8; I Jn 5:6- ouk en to hudati monon (B mono). In Jn 5:44 monou is best TAKEN ADVERBIAL; not from him who alone is God, but only from God (Jewish monotheism was unimpeachable; Jesus was referring to their love of human praise), IN SPITE OF THE WORD ORDER. Lk 5:21 adv. monos.”

    But what is the argument in favor of taking this adverbially? Surely Nachimson is not suggesting that we should take whatever view of any passage that Moulton, or Turner who wrote the volume in question, took. If so, then we can surely destroy the KJV Only position using such authority. There is, in fact, no argumentation provided in favor of this position at all. We see here an illustration of the KJV Only method. Those quotes from grammarians which appear to support their position are authoritative, and all others are not.

    The fact is that there is excellent reason to read this passage precisely as it is written and to take the term adjectivally. Of the modern versions, I found only one, the NLT uses the term adverbially. Now I want to emphasize that the simple fact that all these translations take the term adjectivally doesn’t make it so. But it does make Nachimson’s claim that Husbheck is ignorant of Greek grammar rather silly. While he tries to focus an attack on just one person he’s really saying that all of these people did not make a translational choice, but rather that they are all ignorant of Greek grammar.

    It would do the reader good to examine the passage mentioned by Nigel Turner; Luke 5:21. This passage states:

    “And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?”

    In this passage in Luke you have a similar set-up, where the discussion is centered around something ONLY GOD CAN DO! There was never any question about monotheism! Such are the devious of ways of amateur Bible critics who fool around with Greek New Testaments. It is like a toddler trying to handle a 9mm pistol. Nevertheless, in Greek, the last phrase of Luke 5:21 appear as thus:

    “… ei me monos ho theos;” – Lit. “Except only God?” Hence the Greek indicative “ei,” and the Greek subjunctive particle “me,” together form and idiom that means, “except/unless.” However, in this case better English is “but.” However, the point is, you have the adjective “monos” functioning as an ADVERB just like John 5:44 even those the sentence structure is different. The point is still the same because both contexts are discussing entities that are limited to God’s discretion.

    But what Nachimson misses, while busily accusing others of ignorance, is the simple fact that the syntax of these two passages is different. The probability that “monos” is an adverb in Luke 5:21 is much higher than in John 5:44. The fact that there are similarities in the context does not mean that the point must be the same. Note in addition that it is the Pharisees talking in Luke 5:21.

    I now omit some paragraphs quote Daniel B. Wallace on the use of adjectives adverbially in Greek. You can again go back to the referenced article to read this if you wish, but this is a point that was never in dispute.

    Therefore, it is evident that based upon the context of John 5, and the clear fact that adjectives (even if in the attributive position in a prepositional phrase) can function adverbially to form a more idiomatic structure in the English translation.

    The KJV only method continues. First, Nachimson provided a substantial amount of evidence to support an idea that was never in dispute (adjectives can be used adverbially in Greek), and now he claims that he has proven something else–namely that one should take this particular instance of an adjective adverbially. There is a key difference between the examples given and John 5:44. In John 5:44 the adjective is in the attributive position, while in all the other examples, either it is not, or there is some other syntactic indication that one should take the adjective adverbially. Assuming Nachimson quoted Turner correctly, and I don’t have that volume at hand to check, I would simply have to disagree with him that one should take “monos” adverbially in John 5:44

    But second, Nachimson goes on to suggest that we are taking “monos” adverbially in order to “form a more idiomatic structure in the English translation.” Does Nachimson have any comprehension of translation theory at all? If it should be taken adverbially at all, it would be because that was the intent of the Greek of this passage, not to make the English more idiomatic. We try to make the English as idiomatic as possible so that people who read it in English understand the intent.

    Thus, the A.V. 1611 preserves the better reading “that cometh from God only?” instead of, “that comes from the only God?” in the modern translational perversions.

    And there’s that typical KJV only quote. At the most Nachimson has demonstrated that one might, were one so inclined, justify the possibility of an adverbial translation. He hasn’t even begun to demonstrate that it is the best one, nor to provide any evidence that taking “monos” adjectivally here is a “perversion.”

    POINT: LEAVE JOHN 5:44 AS IT STANDS IN THE A.V. 1611 AND LEARN SOME MORE DETAILS ABOUT GREEK GRAMMAR AND CHAPTER CONTEXTS BEFORE YOU MESS WITH THE GREATEST BOOK IN THE HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.

    . . . and point refuted. It is Nachimson who lacks an adequte knowledge to cogently argue his point, thus he is left arguing something else, and then hoping we won’t notice his sleight of hand as he claims to have proven his original point.

  • Nostalgia and Idolatry

    In worship recently I was privileged to hear a group sing some old gospel music. They were enthusiastic, energetic, and clearly enjoyed worshipping God through their music. As I sat and listened, I could feel a wave of nostalgia roll over the congregation. There was the feeling that this was the sort of service–campmeeting style, singing good old hymns, and expressive–in which they had really met the Lord.

    Now I’m not complaining about people being nostalgic for the style of worship that they experienced in their youth. It’s wonderful, in fact, to see people trying to look for that first love, the intimacy with the Lord that was felt for a short period of time but that they don’t necessarily feel on a daily basis now.

    But there is a point at which nostalgia can become idolatry, and that point is when we let the form replace the substance. For many of the folks in that service, while they loved the form, they knew and sought the substance, God’s actual presence in their lives. For others, however, they loved the form, and let it replace the substance. Just across the campus, during the next hour, at another worship service, there are people who are worshipping with enthusiasm and sincerity, and experiencing that good old time revival encounter with God. Many of the second group–those who long for the form but have forgotten the content–think that the group of people in the other service have either departed from the faith, or at least have ventured onto dangerous ground. They don’t recognize that these people, using modern music and a modern setting are experiencing the communion with God that they experienced when they were young. The form has changed, but the substance is the same.

    I call it idolatry when we let the form replace the substance. This is the Exodus 32 dancing around the golden calf. “These are your gods, oh Israel!” (Exodus 32:4). We replace the golden calf with the order of worship, and the plural “gods” with “God’s presence” but we still substitute the image for the reality.

    And lest anyone get me wrong, it is just as easy to worship the modern form as an idol as any older form. Young people who look at their contemporary worship service with modern music and equate the music and the form with the presence of God are just as much idolaters as older members who remember the past with nostalgia, but forget the God who is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

    It’s about God’s presence, not the form!

    During the years when the Brownsville Revival was going strong here in Pensacola, people would come from all over the country, and yes, all over the world, to see what God was doing at Brownsville Assembly of God. They would observe the music, the order of service, the style of preaching, even the prayers and personal ministry, and then they would go home. Some understood that God was not necessarily going to work everywhere in precisely the same way. But many went home and tried to duplicate the “Brownsville experience.” The folks on the platform could say, “Don’t go home and try to duplicate Brownville. Pray and listen to what God has to say, and do that!”

    Some people couldn’t get past the form. Their golden calf was a band with guitars and drums, a sequence of songs, a style of preaching and prayer. When God didn’t show up, they pretended. They danced around their golden calf.

    Worship is about you in community with others worshipping and communing with God. It is not about the particular form. You may find a particular form most helpful, but that’s not the definition of worship; it’s just the way worship works for you. Others may find that communion with God through other music and other forms. The key is to be watching for God. In order to do that, you have to get your eyes off the golden calf, whatever that is for you.

  • Minimum Wage and EITC

    I got this link through a comment on my previous post on the minimum wage, but I want to make sure to call everyone’s attention to it. David Prenatt, Jr., on his blog Net Esquire, made a number of posts on the minimum wage debate, and particularly on the Earned Income Tax Credit as an alterantive to it. You can start with his latest, Simplifying the Minimum Wage Debate, and work your way from there.

    I had not previously thought of the EITC as an alternative to the minimum wage, which simply illustrates the dangers of keeping one’s thinking inside the box. A little more flexibility allows me to see this as a viable alternative.

    I wanted to underline this point because it illustrates my major point, which was that Christians can agree on the moral issues whilst disagreeing on the strategy. We can be in support of a living wage, and yet disagree on the strategies to accomplish that goal. Equating the strategy with the goal in a moral sense will simply prevent us from finding new and better strategies.

  • Translations and Bible Study

    I’ve been involved in occasional exchanges in another forum on the use of translations in Bible study. This individual seems to think that when he finds a translation that supports a particular point of view, he can just stick with that translation, and nobody should be able to question him. It’s one of the weirdest arguments I’ve heard about Biblical studies. It is close to the position of Peter Ruckman, who’s KJV Only stance is one of the firmest–and most ridiculous out there. Ruckman holds the KJV to be superior in authority to the Greek and Hebrew texts from which it was translated.

    Even so, Ruckman’s position is much more consistent than that of the correspondent I just mentioned. Ruckman holds that the KJV is always the authoritative text, while this individual seems to believe in the authority of whatever Bible he has in his hand. (It’s still usually the KJV.)

    His position is closer to one I hear from Christians in Bible study. They tell me that the English is good enough for them, and not to bother them with the source languages. Now as a practical point, provided that one studies texts in context, I think one can study the Bible in English or another language into which the Bible has been translated with little danger. Especially in English one can avoid difficulties of interpretation that arise from translation simply by comparing more than one translation. But even in that case a translation derives its authority from the source text, and not the reverse.

    A little knowledge of the differences between the source languages and the one in which you study is also useful. For example, neither Hebrew nor Greek in the Bible use capital letters. The choice to capitalize is based on the interpretation of the translator, both of the meaning of the source text and of the style requirements of the target language. Do you capitalize a particualr pronoun? Let’s say you believe that pronoun might refer to the deity. Your choice to capitalize it or not will depend on an interpretational choice. Does it, in fact, refer to the deity? Does English stylistics require that a pronoun referring to the deity be capitalized? This issue becomes more complex with pronouns referring to Jesus In this case one’s trinitarian theology gets involved as well as stylistic considerations.

    In John 3:5-8, the Greek word pneuma is used a number of times. It is capitalized in some cases and in some not. It is translated “spirit” in some cases and “wind” in others. The fact that a particular translator capitalizes the word in one case and not another does not constitute any sort of an argument as to the meaning of the word, other than that the particular translation team thought it should be interpreted that way. Another translation team might have thought differently. The important–and the only valid–arguments are the contextual arguments that led each translation team to its choices.

    This is because the source Greek text did not have capital letters. The translation team made a choice. You can list this amongst the choices of various authorities, including commentators and other translators. But it does not decide anything.

    I don’t want to discourage people from studying the Bible in translation. There are very good translations available. All you have to do is study each passage carefully in context, and where possible compare translations and interpretations so as to make sure you don’t get stuck with an interpretation that is not supported by the source texts. On the other hand, there are some things that you cannot properly investigate without recourse to the original languages. These are usually few and far between, and are generally minor. But you should be aware of the potential.