Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • 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.

  • It’s One Thing to Lie

    . . . it’s another to lie stupidly when the evidence of that stupidity is right in front of you.

    ID creationists William Dembski gave an account (loosely speaking) of a question and answer by Ken Miller and Francis Collins. Since then an actual transcript has been made that clearly shows the inaccuracy of the account provided by Dembski’s informant. Having dealt with many “eye or ear-witness accounts” of such events, I would never have used such an account without verification. It has the clear signs of the witness hearing what he or she wants to hear. You can read the relevant transcript and Ken Miller’s comments here. (All links, hat tip to The Panda’s Thumb.)

    DaveScot, over on Uncommon Descent has now commented:

    The question and answer as Bill Dembski was given by someone in the audience recalling it wasn’t an unfair paraphrase. The verbage was different but the points were essentially the same.

    That’s not only lying, that’s lying stupidly, and it continues the pattern despicable behavior demonstrated over at Uncommon Descent.

    What DaveScot and William Dembski are trying to paper over is, in fact, the fundamental issue, and the fundamental problem with intelligent design. Intelligent design theory neither argues, nor does it demonstrate that the universe is designed. In fact, one of my strongest objections to ID is that it demonstrates precisely the opposite. If it were true, it would show not that the universe was designed, but rather that if there was design, it is poor design. ID points to the places where design fails as demonstration that design is, in fact true. This is inescapable if one applies any actual thought to the so-called “explanatory filter”–a Dembski contrivance that neither filters nor explains.

    For a Christian who accepts evolutionary theory, such as myself, the most fundamental problem with ID theory is not what it says about nature and science. Apologies to my scientist friends and colleagues, but the scientific answers are not the most fundamental thing to me. The problem with ID is what it says about God. I don’t want to put words in his mouth, but from reading Finding Darwin’s God, Ken Miller has a similar problem. ID finds not God the designer, but God the backroom tinkerer, God the perpetual inventor who can never get it right.

    Futher, even if one allowed that God might have intervened precisely at the formation of life, that would not make current ID theory and the explanatory filter any better than they are. In order to show an intervention at that point one would need to design a complete new theory. ID is bad at what it tries to do now, and it would be bad at detecting intervection at the formation of life. Note that just because ID is lousy does not mean God never intervened. It merely means that ID is lousy science.

    What theistic evolutionists are arguing, for the most part, is simply that God made a universe that was well enough designed to work! We argue that it does work, and that science shows us God’s creation actually working. We celebrate God in even the simple things that happen on a day to day basis. For me, the formation of the bacterial flagellum is something God did. He did it in a wonderfully elegant manner, by creating a universe in which such complexity could appear according to natural laws. Because again, as I see it, natural law is simply the consistent result of God’s will. Consistent!

    Nonetheless my expectation is that scientific investigation will eventually show us how non-living matter can produce life under the appropriate conditions. I think it is just a matter of time. And this points again to the nature of ID theory. It is, in fact, a God of the gaps argument. It posits God’s action where we don’t understand the process. As long as it does that it is horrible theology and it says horrible things about God. It says that God is generally a failure, who creates a system that works partially, but requires constant retuning to make it go. It says further that even that retuning is rather poorly done.

    If, as I expect, a natural process leading to the origin of life is found, I will see in that also the work of God. What I will not expect is that we will be able to properly identify God in the parts of the process that we don’t yet understand.

    This is the big difference between the theistic evolutionists and ID creationists. We see God as a competent designer who is successful. They see him as a complete failure. They believe in a small God that they can bring inside a scientific theory as an explanation. We believe in a God who just won’t fit there. We’re not saying God isn’t good enough to be a scientific explanation. We’re saying he’s something completely different, too big to be an hypothesis, too great to fit in their piddly formulas.

    If the ID proponents could just “get” that, they would perhaps understand why their petty little pseudo-theory gets on the nerves of Christian theists who accept evolutionary theory.

  • Christian Ministries and Politics

    CNN.com has published a commentary by Bishop T. D. Jakes titled Commentary: No political party can contain us. My wife called my attention to it as a blog topic.

    Bishop Jakes is explicitly addressing his comments to the African-American community. To what extent should black churches use the pulpit for politics? How much should they depend on a single political party to accomplish their goals. Often ministers disagree on this issue. Bishop Jakes says:

    I do not believe that African-American ministers should allow their political views to dictate the subjects and tone of their sermons. Some believe their calling is to consistently petition society to address its role in depriving African-Americans of the full benefits of citizenship. Others believe they are called to inform, encourage, coax and propel people of color to provide for themselves, shape their own reality and build institutions to better their communities.

    I’ve encountered both types of ministers, and often they can be very impatient with those who have a different emphasis. Their goals are generally very similar, yet the debate over strategy can get in the way of recognizing the similarities. Bishop Jakes suggests a solution:

    If we as African-American ministers allow anyone to script our sermons for us, where will it end? I respect each minister’s views and recognize his right to tout them, but it is dangerous to try to force all members of any group to align themselves with anyone’s viewpoints, including my own. Each of us must answer the call that he or she receives from God, not the direction of any man.

    Now I don’t feel qualified to comment on how the African-American community deals with politics, but I think he has some very good ideas for the rest of us. We all face issues of how politics relates to our spiritual beliefs and activities. Should a preacher use his pulpit to deal with social issues? If so, just how specific should he get about the solutions to such problems? Should we, as Christians, look primarily for temporal solutions to our problems, or is our focus on another world, if not to the exclusion of this one, certainly to its diminishing?

    There are two temptations for the preacher or church leader involved in politics. First he may get so involved in political solutions that the good news about Jesus gets lost. Second, just as he can with doctrinal issues, he may make peripheral matters, or issues of strategy or tactics become central, and thus divide the body over non-essential issues. Both of these problems occur in the church as a whole.

    For many Christians, good goals get confused with the specific strategy for accomplishing them. Using the issue of abortion as an example, I believe we have farily widespread agreement amongst Christians that reducing the number of abortions in this country is a good goal. As a matter of strategy there are various mixtures of education and legal sanctions. For many, the strategy becomes the actual goal. Thus many conservatives accuse liberals of actually desiring abortions to take place, and believing they are good things, because those same liberals do not support particular laws against abortion. Liberals, on the other hand accuse the conservatives of a lack of concern for the health of women, for individual choice, and for the needs of the children who are born. Now while the priorities may differ, I suspect that the vast majority of liberals are concerned with life, and do not regard abortions as a good thing, while the vast majority of conservatives are concerned with the health of women and with the care of born children, and not just the unborn. While the priorities differ, the hopes are similar.

    Solving this sort of issue in a political way, through the action of the law, can interfere with the gospel way, which is the transformation of people one by one through the power of the Holy Spirit. Such transformed people would be much less likely to have unstable families, and much less likely to be having unjustified abortions. The point here is not to condemn one form of politics over another, but rather to suggest that we can get together on the more basic issue of the gospel, while we differ on political strategies.

    The second problem, making the political strategy part of the goal, is one that was first called to my attention in reading the United Methodist social principles before I joined the United Methodist Church. The social principles struck me as material written by impractical idealists–in many cases (but not all) admirable goals, yet rarely well-considered strategies for attaining those goals. Conservatives are generally likely to agree with me here, though they will often consider the goals themselves less than admirable. Liberals may wonder why I object to the social principles at all.

    Recently I wrote about the minimum wage, so let me use it as an example. I had a very pleasant exchange with a commenter on this blog who disagreed with me on the topic, yet we found that we agreed on the goal: a just, living wage for all. Now we disagreed profoundly on the strategy for implementing that goal. Politicians of all stripes seem to forget that simply because you say some strategy is for the purpose of accomplishing some goal, doesn’t mean that it actually will accomplish that goal. I believe that increased funding of education and infrastructure will tend to improve wages and go further toward creating a living wage than will the minimum wage. Others disagree. It is important to note that we are disagreeing not on the goal, but on the strategy. I think there is little doubt that Jesus would want his followers to support a living wage. But he didn’t tell us how best to accomplish that in 21st century America. That matter of strategy is left to us to decide.

    Even greater confusion results when a pastor allows himself to be identified with a particular political party. The American political parties do not represent a coherent ideology, and certainly neither one can claim the allegiance of Christians in all areas. Those who suggest otherwise are in grave danger of obscuring or drowning out the message of the gospel. This error is again something that can happen from either side. In these cases church leaders would do well to talk about principles and goals, and allow church members to choose strategies for themselves.

    In all cases, however, Bishop Jakes’s advice is important. Each of us must follow the calling of God in what we say and do. Let’s just make sure it’s not our own political and social agendas we are following, and not God’s calling.

  • A Mighty Man

    My wife used one of my radio broadcasts from Running Toward the Goal (no longer on the air) for her devotional for tomorrow morning. In it, I discuss Gideon as a “mighty man.” We tend to remember Gideon for his great deeds, but his story doesn’t start out so auspiciously. I wanted to call attention to this post because I recently wrote about the honor roll of faith in Hebrews 11.

    Some people are concerned with my approach to Hebrews 11, believing I’m calling the writer of Hebrews a liar. Now I am certainly calling him a preacher, with just a little bit of the politician that is necessary in exhortation. When you are exhorting a group of people to do something, you have to give them the impression that they can do it.

    The particular approach of Hebrews 11 is to tell the faith story of a number of known characters, people who were described in their original histories as people with normal human weaknesses, but who nonetheless were used by God in exceptional ways. Gideon is one such.

    If God can use Gideon, he can use me!