Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • The Bible and Old Earth

    Old earth creationists differ from young earth creationists primarily on the age of the earth. There is good reason for this. The evidence that the earth is more than 6,000 years old is overwhelming. While there may be debates on speciation and on many details of biological evolution, lines of evidence from many different branches of science converge to demonstrate that the earth is old.

    But the change in the age of the earth is not so simple. It has an impact on many other aspects of how the Genesis account is to be read.

    First let me distinguish old earth creationism from another view, ruin and restoration, which also accepts the general evidence for the age of the earth. I’ll discuss ruin and restoration in a separate entry, but old earth creationism views the days of creation as long periods of time, culminating in the creation of human beings. Ruin and restoration, on the other hand, still takes Genesis 1-11 literally, but sees this as a recreation. The earth itself is much older, but the earth was restored, and and Adam and Eve were created only 6,000 years ago.

    Further, it’s important to understand the difference between the “young” and “old” in terms of the age of the earth. Young earth creationists suggest 6-10 thousand years. Old earth creationists accept the age generally accepted in scientific circles, 4.5 billion years. Taking the most common time frame of 6,000 years, which is about 1/750,000th the time. Often young earth creationists point to errors in various dating method as evidence that the earth really could be young, but it is important to note that these errors are generally very small compared to the difference between the two time lines.

    The key elements of the old earth creationist view are:

    1. Each day in Genesis 1 represents an indefinite period of time
    2. God was active in creation throughout that time
    3. Though there may be considerable variation, and thus evolution, within groups of creatures, major groups are products of creation
    4. As a corollary to this, physical death does occur before the fall, i.e. creatures created on the fifth and sixth days would die
    5. Humanity is a special creation of God
    6. The fall changed humanity’s spiritual nature, but was not responsible for introducing physical death into the environment

    In my previous entry, Young Earth and the Bible, I mentioned three points regarding the Bible that are accepted by young earth creationists. If one accepts these three points, one must accept a young earth. Old earth creationists hold a modified view of the first and third of these points. They believe that one must determine whether something in the Bible is to be taken literally starting from a neutral position. Gleason Archer, for example, indicates that it is equally wrong to take something figurative literally as it would be to take something figuratively taht was intended literally. In his words, “We grievously err in our interpretation when we interpret figurative language literally; we likewise err when we interpret literal language figuratively.” (From The Witness of the Bible to its Own Inerrancy, quoted from http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_witness_archer.html.)

    Archer is, of course, no liberal, and in fact is one of the major advocates of inerrancy. The issue here is not the authority or accuracy of the Bible, but rather about what the Bible is actually saying. Thus when young earth creationists criticize old earthers for abandoning the Bible, in fact the problem is that the old earthers have abandoned the young earthers’ view of the Bible.

    This difference extends to the third point, in that old earth creationists don’t view the Genesis story as narrative history. They do, however, view it as containing and assuming certain history. They will provide explanations for the time taken when Adam names the creatures, and also look at how the earth existed under the conditions described in each of the creation days. In other words, while it is not a simple narrative, the Genesis narrative does describe natural history in figurative language.

    Most importantly, old earth creationists generally accept the second point, that when the Bible speaks about science it does have priority. They would simply maintain that the Bible makes less statements, and less precise statements, about science.

    While old earth creationists generally believe that physical death occurred prior to the fall, they do see the fall of humanity (Genesis 3) as an incident in historical time. Humanity chose to disobey and as a result was separated from God, and made subject to mortality.

    Finally, old earth creationists generally hold that the flood (Genesis 6-9) was a local event, not a global one. With the geological record explained by an old earth, there would be little room in the evidence for a worldwide flood.

    My next entry will be on the ruin and restoration theory.

    (For more information at an outline level, see God the Creator, The Two Flood Stories, and Genesis Creation Stories – Form, Structure, and Relationship.)

  • Who Needs to Change?

    Carl Zimmer, on The Loom, writes about A Flock of Dodos, and comments on scientists who are portrayed in the movie as “inarticulate and high-handed.” Zimmer expands on this topic in a very balanced way, I think, but I question what is expected of scientists in terms of public relations.

    I know well from my own field that those who do the best work in their field are often not the best people to present it to the uneducated. If you expect all scientists to learn to speak publicly like Kenneth Miller, then many of them are going to have to take time away from research and from teaching other people to be good scientists.

    I know I harp on this topic, but the bottom line here has to be education, especially science education, starting from elementary school. Most people, and most politicians claim that education is our priority in this country, but the actual state of education doesn’t reflect a high priority. Scientists would be able to communicate scientific ideas much more easily if the public was conversant with basic scientific concepts.

    Of course, in a democracy, we need to educate the public in order to get the funding and the standards for the needed education, but that is a task for all of us, not just those in the scientific disciplines. I certainly hope this task can be accomplished.

    (See my previous essay, Make Education a Priority.)

  • Good Posts on Translation

    I want to call attention to a couple of excellent posts on Bible translation. The first is an analysis of Hebrews 1:7 by Iver Larsen, a translation consultant, posted by Wayne Leman on the Better Bibles Blog. This translation also leaves open the question of whether a translation of the Old Testament in the New Testament should be accommodated. In the solution proposed here, that is not necessary, but it’s something worthwhile thinking about.

    The second entry is a conversation between Suzanne McCarthy and J I Packer, which she posted in part. I would simply like to call attention to a couple of comments he made. First, commenting on the TNIV, he stated that “seeking to package the word of God for a particular reading public which the translators thought they could identify and characterize.” At a later point, he states, “When you are teaching, at least when you are teaching at graduate level, which is what we have here, you want as much precision as you can have and actually when you are standing in the pulpit, the same is true.” Does not this latter statement call for a particular type of translation for an audience that one can identify and characterize?

    As the conversation moves forward, Dr. Packer does seem to support the idea that different translations are valuable for different people. Follow the link above and read the entire entry.

  • Young Earth and the Bible

    Note: I’m going to be running two series here in parallel over the next few weeks, one on the methods of Biblical criticism and how a layperson can apply them, and the other on views of God as the creator.

    I’m pretty well known to be a theistic evolutionist, but at the same time, I have said argued that this is just one way of viewing the Biblical and the scientific evidence on origins. Others include old earth creationism, the ruin and restoration theory, and of course young earth (or young age) creationism. I believe that intelligent people hold all of these different positions. That doesn’t mean that I think they are all equally well supported by the evidence, either Biblical or scientific. Thus I will respond with vigor to the arguments of positions with which I disagree, but that doesn’t mean I think the people who advance them are stupid.

    Before I get into today’s topic let me look at a little bit of terminology regarding young earth creationist. A person who accepts all three elements listed below will almost always also accept a young earth and stick with that position. Since I’m summarizing, let me also recommend reading the presentation of these elements by Dr. Kurt Wise in Faith, Form, and Time, Section 1, pages 3-39. I strongly recommend Dr. Wise’s book as the one book to read on young earth creationism–if you’re only going to read one, make it this one. [edited 1/8/2008 for clarity.]

    The elements are these:

    1. The Bible is to be taken literally where possible (this is a very common conservative position, though not all conservative Biblical scholars adopt it. Gleason Archer, to whom I will refer in my discussion of old earth creationism, is a strong advocate of inerrancy and takes a quite different approach here. A good example of a scholar who holds this position is Tim LaHaye, who in his book How to Study the Bible for Yourself, chapter 11, page 159, makes it his first rule of hermeneutics.)
    2. The Bible is the decisive source of knowledge whenever it comments on a topic, including science
    3. The obvious literary form of the Genesis prehistory is narrative history

    Note that those are my restatements of the issue, and not quoted from any particular source. Accept those three things and you will be (or become as you study the Bible) a young earth creationist. Reject them, and you have many other options, but you are unlikely to accept a 6,000 year old earth created in one literal week. There are those who believe in young earth creationism who will not accept what I have stated here, and will argue that there is good scientific support for their position. But I believe I am being fair, and that the issue does primarily depend on one’s theological position with regard to the Bible. Young earth creationists have criticisms of evolution, but the only thing that ties the position together is the Biblical material. I think they should be open about that.

    Now let’s look at the basic evidence, taken literally.

    1. The Bible says the earth was created in one week.
      Taken literally and as narrative history, this one is pretty clear. If one has a bias in favor of the literal reading, then this one will be easy. Other creation stories, such as Psalm 104, will be read as more general descriptions and the “history” label will be granted to Genesis 1 & 2. Between Genesis 1 & 2, priority will be given to reconciliation of the accounts
    2. The Bible provides genealogies in Genesis 5 & 11 that provide complete chronological data. Again, assuming both literal and narrative history, these genealogies provide a very specific answer to questions about the age of the earth. Those YEC advocates who allow up to 10,000 years rather than sticking with 6,000 years depart slightly from the basic interpretive approach by allowing gaps in genealogies that have each person’s age at their first son’s birth specified, and the number of years they lived after that.
    3. The Bible again provides a narrative of the flood. I find it odd that some young earth creationists try to develop their model with the flood and related geology separated. If there was a worldwide flood, if the Genesis narrative describes it essentially as history, then it should become an integral part of the theory
    4. No matter what sort of mass of evidence that archeologists, anthropologists, geologists, and others gather showing that there are major problems with this chronology, this clear reading of the Biblical record must be decisive.

    I would suggest that in discussing this issue, those who disagree should start with where they stand on the three issues I listed, and discuss those first. As a theistic evolutionist, I reject all three of the premises, and I will discuss that in a later entry on theistic evolution. But young earth creationists should be criticized for inconsistency only when they depart from these principles, or when they claim scientific support that they don’t possess (a considerable area for discussion!).

  • Biblical Criticism Overview – I

    One great divide in Christian Bible study is between those who accept and use the methods of Biblical criticism and those who don’t. Generally, those who don’t regard Biblical criticism as a means to destroy the authority of the Bible and certainly as something that a believer can’t use. Since I am a believer, and I use the methods of Biblical criticism, I often find it necessary to describe and defend them.

    One difficulty is simply that most information on Biblical criticism is either so brief that lay persons cannot get a clear idea of what Biblical criticism actually is, or is extremely complex and written for scholars. Previously, I wrote a pamphlet that I could use as a handout, titled Understanding Biblical Criticism. Though I have been able to use it as a handout to good effect, it also falls into the category of “too brief.” (One can also find good articles on Biblical criticism in better Bible dictionaries.) I’m working on a series of additional pamphlets on various of the specific tools of Biblical criticism, such as form criticism, redaction criticism, literary criticism, and so forth. As I prepare to do that, I have been thinking a bit more about the justification for use of the critical methodologies.

    What are the assumptions necessary for use of the historical-critical method? Some believe that use of these methods must be be based on purely naturalistic assumptions, in particular, that one must assume that there is no supernatural element in the Bible. This is commonly stated as a belief that predictive prophecy is not possible, that miracles do not occur, and that the Biblical writers do not have any special information from a supernatural source. Since I do accept predictive prophecy (though in a much more restrictive sense than some), and accept that miracles occur, and do believe that the Biblical writers could receive divine revelation, and nonetheless use the methods of Biblical criticism, I obviously don’t think those are necessary assumptions.

    What is necessary is to assume a human element to inspiration, and I think the presence of such a human element is clear in the writings themselves. Moses is told to have things recorded by human agency (Exodus 17:14), the writer of Kings refers to his sources for information (1 Kings 11:42). The gospels show considerable verbal parallels, that are too close for just oral transmission, but nonetheless are not identical, and thus show the results of human editing. I think those who believe in verbal dictation have failed to explain these types of characteristics of the text. (I discuss views of inspiration further in my essay Inspiration, Biblical Authority, and Inerrancy.) I don’t see any assumptions required in the use of the methods of Biblical criticism other than that one must accept that there are, in fact, strong human elements in the text. I’ll discuss the specific elements necessary as I discuss various specific methods of Biblical criticism over the next few weeks. It’s my plan to present each of the major tools of Biblical criticism in practical terms to help Biblical exegetes better understand commentaries and other works that are based on the results of those methods.

    It’s important to be cautious in reading works of Biblical criticism. First, I recommend never reading just one. Any single Biblical critic (or any other student for that matter) can usually be very convincing when one reads only his arguments in favor. (Some of the best Bible commentators make an excellent presentation of opposing viewpoints.) Second, consider the basic methodology in determining what to accept and what to reject. Often conclusions are presented without an adequate description of the specific methods involved. Don’t be intimidated by the statement that certain conclusions are the assured results of scientific study, and that a rejection of them would be unscientific. Too many people accept the results of Biblical criticism without actually understanding the process by which those results were derived.

    The bottom line here is to read works of Biblical criticism critically. In order to do that you have to understand how the results are produced.

    In my next entry on this topic (not necessarily my next entry) I will outline the tools of Biblical criticism that I will be discussing.

  • Praying Now

    I’ve been working on a new pamphlet for the Participatory Study Series entitled 7 Barriers to Prayer in Your Church. I came up with these seven barriers while leading a prayer conference at my home church (Gonzalez United Methodist). The following expands on just one of these points.

    1Now Peter and John went up to the temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour (3 PM). 2And there was a man who was lame from birth. There were some people who carried him there each day to the gate of the temple that is called “Beautiful” so he could beg from charity from those who went into the temple. 3When he saw Peter and John about to enter the temple he asked them for some charity. 4But Peter looked at him, as did John, and Peter said, “Look at us!” 5So he expected to get something from them. 6But Peter said, “I don’t have any siler or gold, but what I have I’m giving you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazereth, Rise and walk!” 7And Peter took him by the right hand and raised him up. And immediately his feet and ankles were strengthened. 8And he jumped up and stood, and walked around and entered the temple with them, walking and jumping and praising God. 9And all the people saw him walking and praising God. 10But they recognized him as the one who has been sitting in the Beautiful gate of the temple, so they were totally amazed and astonished at what had happened to him (Acts 3:1-10).

    I have always found it interesting how many parents will complain about the government not permitting official prayer in public school (though student led prayer as appropriate times is legal), while at the same time they will confess that they don’t find time to pray with their own children in their own home. There seems to be a strong desire to talk about prayer, but when it comes right down to it, we’re not all that anxious to just do it!

    And this leads me to the second of my seven barriers. (Yes, I’m aware I haven’t written about the first.) This is the “we’ll pray for you” barrier. You can see this in action in just about any church when someone tells another member about a problem, and the response is, “We’ll pray for you.” The idea is that at home in their personal devotional time, or in the next scheduled prayer meeting or prayer group, they will mention that person’s need in prayer. The problem is that frequently we forget to pray, and only rarely is the person prayed for present to receive the personal support of his or her church family praying.

    This has led me to think about this experience of Peter and John. What would have happened if the story went like this, instead of the way it’s recorded.

    Peter and John are entering the temple, and they see a man who has been lame from birth. They get his attention and then say to him, “We don’t have any money, but we’ll pray for you at our next prayer meeting.” Then they continued into the temple.

    What would have happened? Very little! I’m not here primarily concerned with the issue of the miracle. Many times, the result of the request for prayer doesn’t need to be some identifiable miracle. The need may simply be for people to get involved and get active in answering their own prayers. And that’s another problem with the “we’ll pray for you” barrier. We save our prayers for a time when we can easily feel somewhat detached from the problems of the person we’re praying for.

    Let’s look at some characteristics of Peter and John’s behavior in this situation (some of these go beyond my major theme):

    • They were paying attention to the problems of other people while on the way to worship
      Often we are so busy on Sunday morning or Wednesday night that we would have to “pass by on the other side” if we saw someone injured or in need. We might simply never notice.
    • They acted together, but in unity
      Peter is the spokesman, but John works right along with him. We’d be amazed at what could be accomplished if we worked more like a team in the church.
    • They admitted their own limitations
      There’s no point in pretending we have resources we don’t. If we can’t help someone, we need to pass them on to someone who can.
    • They acted in God’s power, not just their own
      Let’s expand this to accomplishing what we can as a team, as the entire body of Christ with our various gifts, and not just based on our own limitations.
    • They (and the man who was healed) provided an open testimony to what had happened
      Don’t be afraid to let other people know when things go well. Don’t be afraid to share.

    Not surprisingly, I think we can learn a great deal from the apostles. 🙂

    For more information on prayer, see I Want to Pray!.

  • John Webb Winter Golf Tournament 2006

    The 2006 John Webb Winter Golf Tournament is now history. Previously I commented on this tournament because of its small beginnings, and what it has become today. Today I will make just a few comments and post a more detailed report with pictures on the golf tournament web site.

    What I saw yesterday was a bunch of guys, really a fairly ordinary group of people, who got together, had fun, and accomplished something much more than any of them could do on their own. Doing good can definitely be entertaining, folks!

    I am so proud of John and his twin sister, Janet. Watching them bring people together for a good cause was a great encouragement to me. I’m pleased that our local station, WEAR TV, chose to include two substantial stories in their evening news report. I’m also thankful to the many individuals and business who contributed in many ways. There’s an extensive list of volunteers who have been making this tournament happen since the first year. I hope to make a list of all these supporters for our golf tournament web site, so you can know who went out of their way to help support the children of Sacred Heart Children’s Hospital.

    Last, but not least, I want to comment on Dontrelle Willis. I had seen him play baseball on TV, and I knew that he and John were acquainted. I knew he was a great pitcher with the Florida Marlins. Just take a look at his stats!

    But I want to tell you also that this is also a fine young man. He went well out of his way to come up here to Pensacola from Miami. He did it without any urging. While he was here he challenged those of us who live here to get more involved in supporting organizations such as Sacred Heart Hospital that do so much good for our community. It’s nice to know that a great
    baseball player is also a great person in daily life. Good job, Dontrelle!

  • Deciding in your Heart

    8But Daniel made a firm decision that he would not pollute himself with the king’s best food or wine, so he asked the chief of the eunuchs for permission not to pollute himself. — Daniel 1:8 (from my TFBV project)

    Literally, the words about Daniel’s decision read, “Daniel set in on his heart that . . .” You may be familiar with the King James Version, “Daniel purposed in his heart.”

    What is the purpose of your heart? We’re very conscious of public image, of what people think of us. People put a great deal of effort into controlling what people think of them. The problem is that the things we do publicly are so much subject to change as our public change. Are we with our friends from church? Drinking and four letter words are out! Are we with our buddies down at the bar? Drinking and four letter words are required! Are we with people who are rich and famous? All those low-life morons who don’t make the right amount of money and aren’t in our social circle can just get out of thought and sight. Are we with unpretentious, ordinary people? Those rich bigots need to be brought down a notch or two!

    Do you read the same books and watch the same shows no matter who is there to see and question you? Or does the TV remote almost have the habit of switching to a Christian channel when your pastor or a church-friend visits, but to something more “entertaining” when your work colleagues show up?

    What we make the firm decision of our heart–inside of us–is what really counts.

    What do you really think about drinking? Can you interrupt your holy church friends who are condemning someone for having a glass of wine with dinner, or having a beer and relaxing with their friends and tell them, “Let’s not judge! I think it’s OK to drink when it’s done appropriately and in moderation?” Can you tell your friends in the bar, “I think we’ve had enough. It’s time to stop?” (I’m not trying to tell you what your decision should be, just that it should be the same, no matter where you are.)

    Can you occasionally poke a hole in the pretentiousness of your rich friends, and ask them to think about things that are more important in life than bank balances and social position? Can you tell your not-so-rich friends that judging people just because they have money is also bigotry? Can you stick with that even when they accuse you of betraying them? (Leviticus 19:15 speaks of favoring neither rich nor poor.)

    What is the decision of your heart?

  • Involvement

    “Look at how large a fire can be kindled by just a small flame.” — James 3:5.

    James is talking about the bad things that can be done by our tongues, and indeed he is right to do so. We normally regard physical damage as the more dangerous issue. We use the saying, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” It’s a good sentiment. It’s good to determine not to be hurt by words, but that’s very difficult to do. The fact is that words accomplish a great deal. Often we don’t realize just how much.

    But the purpose of this entry is not to discuss words, except as an illustration of how seemingly small things can have a powerful impact. One or two words can change the whole nature of a conversation, a conference, a church service, or even a family’s evening at home. Those couple of words can change a political climate as well. I’m sure most of you will have experienced a time in a meeting or in a group of people where an entire discussion was going one way, but then a word, a sentence, or even the expression on someone’s face turned the tide. People often have a sort of herd reaction. If one person with a little bit of leadership starts the process, everybody else just follows the path of least resistance. One person going against the tide may find that many folks were uncomfortable with what was going on, but just didn’t say anything.

    It seems to me that we could use this principle for good. We could have a whispering campaign of good, positive things rather than of gossip. We could all try to get one another to think more deeply about subjects, whether religion, politics, or social issues are involved, rather than just going along with the emotions of the moment.

    This extends to financial issues and community involvement as well. People with only a little bit to contribute don’t feel that they are important or that they need to get involved. Let charity be done by big corporations and by rich people. But the combined effect of what supposedly unimportant people do can be massive.

    Last night I was at a dinner meeting for my stepson John Webb’s Winter Golf Tournament. This is an event that was started originally to help our family deal with the costs of treatment for our son James who had cancer. By the time the first tournament came around, James was in his first remission, and the finances were no longer needed. The little group that started this idea raised a few hundred dollars that year, and since the medical bills were paid by that time, with James’s encouragement they passed the money on to the children. He understood what it was like being a child in chemotherapy, and so the child life program was chosen for the money, providing entertainment and fun for the children who have so little of it.

    The next year the money moved into the thousands, and the year after that it moved to around ten thousand dollars. None of us are rich. Though John now has a contract with the St. Louis Cardinals, he has only played a few innings at the major league level over the last couple of years, and minor league ball isn’t riches. (He’s headed to major league spring training.) None of the people who started this program are rich. But this year we’re beginning to get more celebrities actively involved. More teams are going to be here; in fact, we will probably have as many players as we can most optimistically accommodate. Look at what a big thing a very little start kindled! (Watch this blog space for a report on the success of this year’s tournament.)

    One comment at our meeting last night was that there are a few rich people here in town who are very generous, but are constantly tapped for money for every project. As a result, we need to find more people to be involved. Those people are the ones who can give $10 or $15 or even less. Preachers complain about the dollar givers, those who place a dollar in the offering plate just so they don’t let it pass by with nothing. But may church budgets would be in serious trouble without those dollar givers.

    The point of all of this is that whatever your abilities, whatever your goals, say something about them and do something about them. Your action may be small, but the results can surpass your wildest dreams.

  • New Translations in Selection Tool

    I’ve updated my Bible Translation Selection Tool to include some additional, older versions. As I add these versions I want to note a couple of things about this tool.

    The ratings should be regarded as subjective. I make an effort to use objective standards, but especially on the fine points, it can be difficult to do. For example, I can be certain that the REB is much less formal equivalent that the NKJV or the NRSV. But the difference in formality between the NRSV and the NKJV is a little harder to measure objectively. Nonetheless, I count words in certain passages and try to determine which are justified in terms of form, so that I can get a scaled result indicating how close to the forms of the source language the translators stayed. Similarly for the index indicating how functional equivalent a translation is, I check numerous passages and look at the use of idiomatic translations. Generally the results agree with what I will get if I simply read and compare the versions, and also with what the translators claim in the preface.

    When I get to such issues as readability, and value for public reading, my comments are even more subjective. For example, I like something that is clear, but in a formal register for use in public reading. That bias is bound to show through. In my own earlier comments on choosing a pew Bible, which normally will also be used for public reading, I have indicated cases in which this bias would be inappropriate. For example, while I don’t regard the NCV as particularly good for public reading, it might be the best public reading version for a church involved in outreach to people whose native language is not English, or for a church in outreach to people in its literacy program.

    Now, here is the list of translations added to my selection tool yesterday and today:

    • JPS Tanakh
      Hebrew scriptures only, the Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh is an extremely valuable translation for the serious student, especially for those who are not Jewish, but want to understand the Jewish point of view.
    • New Life Version
      A simple language version done by missionaries. It’s fairly good, but I didn’t find much to get excited about compared to similar offerings in the NCV, CEV, and so forth.
    • New International Reader’s Version
      Believe it or not, early rumblings of the gender language war came when this version was first released. It is mostly used for children’s Bibles, and is an excellent choice for that use.
    • RSV
      This is an old standby, though mostly superceded by the NRSV and the English Standard Version.
    • The Complete Jewish Bible
      Some might be confused by the title, but this is in fact a Christian version translated by a Jewish believer in Jesus. I would prefer other terminology than “Jewish” Bible simply because I don’t like to get into fights over Jewish identity and the appropriate use of various terms. I should point out that the translator of this Bible means something different by “Jewish” than do the translators of the JPS Tanakh.
    • New English Bible
      Again, I had previously not included this version because it has been replaced by the more current REB. Some are still using the NEB, though less than use the RSV.

    Use the selection tool to get a list of versions to check out. My judgment is subjective like everyone else’s. I believe, however, that if you choose your priorities carefully, I’ll be able to help direct you to a short list of versions to check out for yourself.