Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Christianity

  • The 24/7 One Year Chronological Bible

    The greatest difficulty I have in reviewing this Bible edition is distinguishing between what interests me and what might be helpful for people who are wanting to put more spark in their Bible study.

    24/7: A One Year Chronological Bible from Tyndale House is directed at a particular purpose, and it fulfills that purpose quite well.  I tend to emphasize the translation in discussing Bibles, but individual readers tend to look for a particular edition, often buying a Bible not for the translation, the Biblical text it uses, but for the features of that edition.  What most people look for in a Bible edition is a single volume that will generally be “their” Bible for study, for reading, for use in church–pretty much everything.

    If you look at this Bible from that point of view, it’s not going to make it.  It doesn’t have any study notes (no surprise), and it would be very difficult to find verses as needed.

    My point is not to criticize this edition for not doing what it does not intend to do, but rather to emphasize that it’s good for a particular purpose.  It provides a new approach to reading the Bible through and becoming acquainted with its story.

    There are a number of ways to think of the Bible story.  One is to think of the books are they are collected and put together, the story of the formation of the Bible. This is important, and relates to the process of canonization and thus to the history of the church, our community of faith.  Another way is to look for theological themes.  This Bible provides a way to address the story line, the record of how God has acted.

    In addition, it’s designed for the spiritual discipline of Bible reading.  Biblical materials are arranged chronologically, so that you will hear Psalms in the editors best guess as to where they belong, and you will read the messages of the prophets at the time when they were written.

    There are some obvious difficulties with this approach, one being that not everyone will agree on where things belong.  Psalm 104 is placed with a large group of Psalms, some other wisdom literature, and portions of (1st) Isaiah just after the fall of the northern kingdom.  I know of people who would argue both substantially earlier and substantially later.  Obviously they have to put it somewhere, and that’s not a bad choice.

    Several books whose dating might be controversial are placed in traditional positions.  The book of Jonah is placed right after the narration of the reign of Jeroboam II with a note that Jonah’s ministry occurred during this period, which assumes that the book is not pseudonymous, and many scholars believe.  All of second and third Isaiah is placed inside the reign of Hezekiah, and Daniel is placed in the late 7th/early 6th century.

    These aren’t bad choices, as the reasoning for other dating would have to be explained to the average Bible reader, and there is also an argument for hearing the books in one sense as they were intended to hear.  Whether pseudonymous or not, Jonah bears the name of a prophet from the reign of Jeroboam II, Isaiah internally claims to be written in a period spanning the reign of Hezekiah, and Daniel provides a 7th-6th century chronology for itself.  Nonetheless, I think it’s worth noting.

    Now let me get more to the purpose of the book.  It’s intended to provide a year long reading program, allowing the reading to experience the Bible story in a new way, one that would be very hard to do normally.  I think that’s a laudable goal, and the editors are completely successful.  This shouldn’t be your first reading Bible, but if you’ve read the Bible through at least once, it will be a good way to experience it again.

    One of the great errors of many deep Bible students is to get so focused on the trees (such as the details I discussed above) that they don’t get a picture of the story.  This Bible will help fulfill that need.

    Positives:

    1. Single column text aids reading
    2. Good arrangement with readings identified in the text.  There’s a guide in the back, but you won’t have to use it.
    3. Use of the NLT text.  The NLT is extremely well suited for a Bible of this type
    4. Approximate timeline
    5. It isn’t your “carry to church” Bible and it nowhere pretends that it is.

    Neutral:

    1. There is a Christian symbol chosen and featured each month of reading.  This doesn’t do anything for me, but I’m guessing it will for others.
    2. Scripture index, necessary for looking up particular texts, but not needed for the main purpose of the book.

    Negative:

    1. Size and print size. This could also be positive, but it strikes me as negative based on the purpose.  It’s a bit small.  That makes it portable, which could be useful, but at the same time a bit harder to read and to use.
    2. Binding.  I don’t know about this, but my wife believes the binding will not be durable enough if one is reading through it in the year.

    Since I cited my wife, I should mention her other comments.  She didn’t like the print and binding that much, but she very much liked the idea of having a Bible arranged chronologically.  She thinks more devotionally than I do, so that’s worth mentioning.

    Despite the comments on binding and print, in general this is a wonderful addition to the available tools for students of the Bible.

    Now we just need to start using them.  We are richer in Bible study tools right now in the English language, yet our Biblical knowledge continues to deteriorate.  That indicates a lack of desire or will, I think, as there is certainly no excuse for someone who reads English and wants to know the Bible not to do so.

  • Christian Carnival CCLXII

    Welcome to Christian Carnival CCLXII.  I could always call this the “I’m too tired to think of a theme” edition, but I’m really just presenting the posts in order this time.

    There are several really good ones, so check them out.

    GP presents The Circle of Life « Manely Montana posted at Manely Montana, saying, “The circle of life”

    Travis presents Our Plans or His Purpose posted at Your Everyday Christian, saying, “Sometimes God’s purpose means changing our plans.”  (Oh no!  Hate it when that happens!)

    Roy Twogood Jr. presents About Plans and Planning… posted at OLIN e-Book e-Publishing.  He got a lesson from God on the subject and he’s passing it on!

    Ronnica presents I Trust You, Lord posted at Ignorant Historian.

    Chris Brooks presents A Non-Religious Case Against Same-Sex Marriage posted at Homeward Bound, saying, “An argument that same-sex marriage is unhealthy for our society that we can take into the public square.”

    ChristianPF presents How to be a Biblically responsible investor posted at Money in the Bible | Christian Personal Finance Blog, saying, “We are stewards and have a responsibility to invest in appropriate companies. These are some tips to help us…”

    Allen Scott presents Give me, Give me, and then give me Some More posted at Journey Across the Sky.

    Vickie Sloderbeck and Faith Janes presents Do Your Children Know Who You Really Are? posted at Sidetracked Moms.

    Josanne Anthony presents Dolls **some adult content** posted at Brilliant Babblings.  No, don’t worry.  We’re not starting to link to adult content, though the post does ask you just what you want to put in front of your pre-teen children.  On another blog, she presents Jesus Picks Up Pennies posted at The Radiant View.

    Diane R presents The Three Dialectics posted at Crossroads: Where Faith and Inquiry Meet, saying, “Adult Sunday School classes can use one of three dialectics. One should probably be ditched; one should be used at times and the third one is the one that will release the class from boredom and bridge the generations.”

    Richard H. Anderson presents Pyramid Scheme posted at dokeo kago grapho soi kratistos Theophilos.

    Andy Deane presents Pastor Andy Deane’s New Book – Learn to Study the Bible posted at How to Study the Bible – 40 Bible Study Methods!, which tells about a new book on how to study the Bible.

    Raffi Shahinian presents Stick Your Systematic Theologies… posted at parables of a prodigal world.

    Frances presents Two Questions posted at Christianity Lived Out, saying, “I would love some help answering two questions.”

    Bob MacDonald presents Is faith a leap? posted at Sufficiency, in which he discusses the relationship between faith and science.  On his other blog he presents Rarely Used Words in the Psalter – 17.  I must personally note that Bob’s work on the Psalter is well worth reading, though not for the faint of heart.

    David presents Intimacy With Christ, Taking Thoughts Captive, Day Two posted at TransformSA Blog, saying, “God Bless!”

    Annette presents True Woman – Reflecting God’s Glory posted at Fish and Cans.  Do you think of modesty of dress from a Biblical perspective?

    Chasing the Wind presents Walking Together posted at Chasing the Wind, saying, “What do the Pittsburgh Steelers and a good church have in common? Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians can teach us how to play nice together.”

    Danny presents What Do We Pray For? A Look at the Sermon on the Mount posted at Boston Bible Geeks, saying, “A short look at Matthew 7:7-11 in the context of the rest of the Sermon on the Mount.”

    Michelle presents Ephesians 5:22 – Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. posted at Thoughts and Confessions of a Girl Who Loves Jesus….  Oh no!  Taking on that long “s” word.  Check out what she has to say!

    Rani presents Jabez’s Prayer posted at Christ’s Bridge, saying, “Enjoy learning about an important person who only had two verses in the Bible.”

    Wickle presents The view from the rear posted at A True Believer’s Weblog, saying, “Wickle works as a graphics tech at his church, and loves to see the congregation at worship.”

    Mark Olson presents On Celibacy posted at Pseudo-Polymath, saying, “I’ve heard the phrase “celibacy is a calling which only few of us can answer.” I think this is exactly wrong. Celibacy is a universal Christian calling. Do you agree or not?”

    From Pastoral Musings we get Bibilical Manhood: Man The Crown of Creation, Not The All – A call for men to remember that humanity is God’s crowning work of Creation.  Man, the individual male, is not, but should be a servant-leader in his home.

    Weekend Fisher of  Heart, Mind, Soul, and Strength offers Grace over meals – for troubled times especially, an original prayer for grace in troubled times, based closely on the Sermon on the Mount.

    That concludes this edition. Submit your blog article to the next edition of christian carnival ii using our carnival submission form. For past posts, see the Christian Carnival Archive.

  • Christian Carnival by Tonight

    I’m going to be posting it some time in the evening.  Thanks for all your submissions!

  • Review – Life Application Bible Studies: Acts

    I’ve had this booklet for some time and have been intending to review it.  Procrastination works, however, so it hasn’t risen to the top of the pile of things to write about until now.  That’s not because it isn’t interesting or useful–not at all!

    In fact, this book falls right into the center of my work–getting the folks in the pews to study the Bible more.  My short summary:  This is a valuable addition to the arsenal, and I hope the remainder of the Life Application Bible Studies are done in much the same mold.

    I always approach books with certain expectations.  It may be the person who recommended them, the author, the publisher, the series, or some other hint along the way.  In this case, I had high expectations because the study is based on the New Living Translation (NLT), and the Life Application Study Bible.  Now that combination is not exactly five star material for my personal study, as it is too direct in application, and too light on the detailed exegesis and theology for my personal taste.  But to judge it in that fashion would be wrong, as it does what it intends to do rather well, both in the translation and in the notes.

    The study guide includes all of the relevant material for the book of Acts.  While I like this material, I suspect this may actually be the least useful part of the study guide.  How can I say that after what I’ve just said?  Well, in my experience most class members have their own Bibles and they generally tend to want to use them.  This can be a bad thing, when the study group gets too scattered because of different notes used, or a very good thing as people get exposed to different ideas.  How valuable the included translation and notes are will depend on your particular group.

    The actual lessons and notes, however, are simply outstanding for a fairly average church group.  They tend to start simple and factual, and grow to more thoughtful and direct questions.  For example, in Acts 4 we go from asking what opposition the people of the early church experienced, to opposition that people you know have experienced, to the much more personal question 11 (p. 97) “When were you afraid to speak up for Christ?”  In the “MORE” section we get down to church unity with questions like how unified your church is, and what you can do.

    Because many of the questions can overwhelm the small group leader and the time for a small group, you will need to go through them and decide what you will emphasize.  There are suggestions for this in the introduction.

    Speaking as a person who has written Bible study guides, even though mine are aimed at a more theologically oriented study, I could easily see myself choosing this as a guide for a group that I would teach.  I recommend it highly.

  • Christian Carnival CCLXII Coming Here!

    Neither does anyone light a lamp and put it under a basket, but rather puts it on a lamp stand, and it gives light to all who are in the house.  In this way let your light shine before people, so they can see your good deeds, and give glory to your Father who is in heaven. — Matthew 5:15-16

    So why not submit your best post for the last week (since last Tuesday at midnight) and let your light shine?

    Here are the basics:

    I’m hosting this week, and I’m looking forward to your entries.

  • A KJV-Only Comment on my Video

    For a video that includes nothing but me talking and some amateur (by me) captions, my Why I Hate the KJV video has done well on YouTube.  With 3563 viewings as of the time I’m posting this, and 231 comments.

    I must confess that I have not paid much attention to the comments thread, because YouTube doesn’t permit links and comments are short, and because most of the comments are quite inane, as is usual in KJV-Only discussions.  After all, what profound and informed argument actually favors KJV-Only?

    Comment 231 caught my attention, not because it was profound or informed, but because it was bad in a new way.

    The comment reads:

    The HIV (NIV) false “bible” is published by the same company that publishes the Satanic Bible by Anton LaVay. Jesus Christ said a corrupt tree cannot produce good fruit. If you think the HIV is good fruit, you’re calling Jesus a liar and you need to get right with God.

    I mean one of the translators of the HIV was an OPEN PRACTICING HOMOSEXUAL. How much more obvious does it need to get? Burn your HIV!

    Of course we have all the usual charm and logical structure of the normal KJV-Only comment.  I have written previously on the issue of having a homosexual translator on the team, which I regard as not only ad hominem, but largely irrelevant even as ad hominem arguments go.  The key point here is that when a Bible translation is released we have the source texts, we have the translation, we can look and see whether it is accurate or not.  (Usually there will be disagreements, but that’s translation.)

    Debating the quality of the translators, even if one is discussing their actual qualifications for translation work, is generally missing the point.  If I find a translation that is poor, and I look and see that the committee involved was underqualified, I might take that as an explanation.  I wouldn’t read the list of translators, decide they’re underqualified, and determine that their translation was lousy without reading it.

    But I find the whole tree and fruit thing very interesting.  Here are some questions:

    1. Is the “tree” that produces a Bible translation the company that publishes it?
    2. If so, would a Bible become corrupt if it was first published by a “righteous” company, but later  licensed to a “corrupt” publisher, however defined?
    3. What kind of sin must a publisher be guilty of to pollute otherwise pure scriptures that it might print?
    4. What kind of sin must a translator be guilty of in order to corrupt his translation?  For example, would the translation be corrupt if the translator was a gossip?  An adulterer?
    5. Is the translation corrupt if the translator is guilty of such sin, but we don’t know about it?

    While this KJV-Only argument may strike many of my readers as beneath comment–though when has that ever stopped me?–perhaps what we should think about is whether when we make what seem to be high moral pronouncements, we also say things that we really don’t want to say.

  • Annoyed at Certain Christian Labels

    On Wednesday I got snarky about a post by Jim West, dealing with “Biblical faith” and yesterday I wrote about a test that is alleged (incorrectly) to determine whether I have a “Biblical worldview.”

    There’s a common element here that annoys me, and it’s these multi-word or hyphenated Christian labels for things that might well be labeled with one word. The term “Biblical” comes in for particular and regular abuse. Now some of the labels I’m going to mention do have valid uses, but they are also susceptible to misuse on a frequent basis.

    Let me start with some examples without the word “Biblical” in them.

    How about “born-again Christian.” As opposed to what? A non-born-again Christian? If I read John 3 correctly “born-again” (much better translated “born from above” with a footnote on multiple meaning) is a metaphor for becoming a Christian, thus “born-again Christian” would normally be redundant. This is one of those I think should generally be dropped. It’s a label used to create a superior class of Christians. “Are you a Christian?” somebody asks. “Yes,” is the answer. “But are you a born-again Christian?” Any answer but “yes,” of course, means that one is either not a real Christian or belongs to some inferior class of Christians. (People who were born into Christian families and have been Christians as long as they can remember have a very hard time responding here!)

    Then there is “Spirit-filled.” Now I find this label useful occasionally, to cover what it most commonly means in a technical sense, i.e. someone who believes that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is a separate experience, and also believes they have had that second experience. But in practice, it becomes much like born-again. There are Christians, the bulk of the pew-sitters and “professing” Christians (what a put-down “professing Christian” is!), and then there are the “Spirit-filled Christians” who have truly gotten it right.

    And how about Bible-believing? You can catch this one in a full label of a truly wonderfully superior sort of Christian, the “born-again, Spirit-filled, Bible believing Christian.” As opposed, of course, to all of the Christians who don’t “have” the Holy Spirit (I’ve always wondering about people who say they “have” the Holy Spirit), are not born-again, and think the Bible is so much wastepaper. This one is simply short hand for “a person who believes the same thing I do about the Bible.” In my area, it most commonly designates KJV-Only advocates, and because of that usage, many people who might normally claim to be “Bible believing” don’t use the phrase, since they might be mistaken for KJV-Only types.

    But I think the term “Biblical faith”, for example, can be, and is used in much the same way. In a Christian conversation, what specifically does a “Biblical faith” designate? I think it is used largely to look down on the faith of other Christians, which is not regarded as adequately Biblical. They might, for example, regard science and faith as compatible. If I were discussing the word “faith” in an interfaith context, I might use Biblical, though I’d be more likely to use the term “Christian”, since otherwise how might it be properly distinguished from Jewish faith. Jewish faith is surely Biblical in many senses of the word.

    Just as I have argued that here is no “obvious exegesis” I would also argue that there is no obvious “Biblical faith” and the use of the phrase very commonly means “a faith that agrees with my doctrinal understanding, a doctrinal understanding that I believe is consistent with the Bible–unlike yours.” Sorry for the wordiness, but that’s what I hear most often when someone uses that label.

    At least in the case of “Biblical worldview” the terms aren’t redundant. But in the way it is used, it is again clearly an example of putting down the “worldviews” of other Christians. If a Christian is a socialist, for example, according to that site I visited yesterday, they might be saved, but they don’t really have a “Biblical worldview.”

    I’d be interested in hearing other valid uses of these labels in the comments. Personally, while I think some of these labels get used in a valid way, I think they tend towards creating a privileged group of “especially right” Christians.

    And while we’re at it, we might ask ourselves whether our distinguishing feature as Christians is being “righter” than anyone else.

  • Having Trouble Giving?

    I found this pretty funny!

    CVC Church – Tithe Phobia – The best home videos are here

    HT: Church Tithes and Offerings.

  • So I AM a Secular Humanist

    … at least according to this test. (HT: TheoPoetic Musings, who also turned out to be a secular humanist, though not quite as much of one as I am.) I scored 62 of 166, 37% which makes me a secular humanist!

    The interesting thing about this test was that I had a hard time deciding whether it was written by incompetent test question writers, or skilled marketers. In favor of incompetence I noted: (1) the obvious lead-in, which seems to announce, “We’re trying to suck you in!” (2) Questions with obvious false dichotomies implied, (3) The obviously American character of a worldview test, 4) Questions with multiple elements not necessarily connected logically.

    In favor of skilled marketing is that “sucking you in” feeling which might be much more effective on someone who doesn’t look for it everywhere. In this case it was very blatant, but their market may well be people who can only be drawn in by the obvious. The idea of the test is clearly designed to catch one’s fear of not really being on the in-crowd with God, despite several nods to salvation by faith.

    In the “I don’t know what it means” category is the ridiculous scale they use:

    • Strong Biblical Worldview Thinker
    • Moderate Biblical Worldview Thinker
    • Secular Humanist Worldview Thinker
    • Socialist Worldview Thinker
    • Communist/Marxist/Socialist/Secular Humanist Worldview Thinker

    Everything from support for war to economic policy becomes part of a Bible world view.

    War:

    One of the Ten Commandments is, “thou shalt not kill;”, thus it stands to reason that God is opposed to war and nations going to war.

    My answer of “tend to disagree” was said to be incorrect. The correct answer, if one has a Biblical worldview approved by these folks, is “Strongly disagree.”

    Similarly things like capital punishment and a capitalist economy are said to be a part of the Biblical worldview, and the only acceptable answer is to strongly agree that capital punishment is Biblical, and that the Bible overall teaches an economy built on private property and personal initiative. (I’m not so sure about the former, and the latter leaves substantial wiggle room, in my view.

    In any case, in the final analysis, it appears to that test is designed to produce the result “secular humanist” unless you’re an American right-winger who probably regards the Republican party as socialist, thus making you a good candidate for indoctrination into the so-called “Biblical worldview.”

  • A New Kind of Publishing

    When I was persuading by my wife and daughter to get a 21st century cell phone, my now indispensable Palm Centro, my friends were amused but not surprised that I soon had Bible software on it.

    I must confess that the one time I used that Bible in church I got some really suspicious looks.  “That guy’s using his cell phone during the church service!”  No, but I was checking out a passage the preacher was using in the ESV, which is the version I have on the phone.  (No, the ESV is not my favorite, but it’s quite usable for me.)

    At the same time, I’m dealing with the fact that in my own publishing work I’m finding that many more people want content that is accessible online, and you simply don’t get to talk to them if you don’t make things available now, and don’t make them interactive.

    David Ker relates these new realities to Bible publishing, and notes some of the potential problems as well.  I have found the same problem he has with devotional time.  I can often work Bible reading and study time into my electronically herded day, but prayer, meditation, and listening to the Holy Spirit are substantially more difficult.  For those I have to cut myself off from the world.

    There is a problem, as I noted tangentially in my post about church yesterday, with equating the technology we use to solve problems with the problems and/or the solutions themselves.  For example, the problem of keeping in touch with one another during the week so that we can spur one another to good works is not solved by employing technology as such; rather, technology can help us do what needs to be done.  It’s also excessively easy to equate social trends with the technology on which they feed; I’m certainly guilty of that.  But all these things do interact.

    I think the basic question will remain whether our tools control us, or we will control our tools.  The new interactivity can provide many new opportunities.  One element of the method of Bible study I teach is sharing.  By sharing I mean hearing from others as well as speaking to others, and testing what you think you heard from God against what others think and hear.  Technology, and particularly the number of voices we can hear will either help or hinder that process, depending on how we use them.  We can now interact with many more people, from many more points of view, but will we interact with them effectively and seriously, or will it be superficial contact?

    The potential is tremendous.  I congratulate David for getting us all thinking about this.  How do we use both social trends and the technology that accompanies or feeds them to improve our Bible study and our spiritual lives?