“Well, of course it is not Christian to ridicule people; those who judge others will often be found guilty of the same sins themselves.”
This statement is in error. Basically, the author makes point A and then explains it by point B, which has nothing to do with point A. He is using the wrong proof to explain his point. It is also taking Bible verses out of context and altering their meaning to fit your own views.
Matthew 7:1-5 “Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. 3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.” (ESV)
The point Jesus is making here is that we should not have one standard of judgment for one person over another. We are all sinners and are all under the same standards of justice; also under grace, for you naysayers. Often times, yes, those who are quickest to pronounce judgment on a particular sin are themselves either guilty of that sin or have been delivered from that sin. The latter are in a unique position to minister directly to those issues and sins they have been delivered from; the former need to repent. The latter half of Jesus’ statement addresses the need to always recognize your own sin and dependence on God; don’t think of yourself more highly than others (Romans 12:3).
Now, to address the first part of this guy’s sentence: “Well, of course it is not Christian to ridicule people…”. In the book of Job, chapters 38 thru 42, God ridicules Job for not knowing Who He is. “Dress for action like a man; I will question you, and you make it known to me.” (38:3) “Have you comprehended the expanse of the earth? Declare, if you know all this.” (38:18) In Mark 7:24-30, Jesus, according to some, calls a woman a dog. And in 1 Kings 18: 20-40, God’s prophet, Elijah, under the anointing of the Holy Spirit, mocks the prophets of Baal: “And at noon Elijah mocked them, saying, “Cry aloud, for he is a god. Either he is musing, or he is relieving himself, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened.”
These are just a handful of Scriptures where God, Jesus, or God’s people under the anointing of the Holy Spirit openly mock or ridicule people.
It is an error to say that “it is not Christian to ridicule people”; this thinking is unbiblical, a result of a popular culture and popular theology where everyone must get along, everyone must play nice, and above all, never do anything to risk offense to another person. It is throwing away the truth in favor of just pure ‘love’, which is not love at all without truth.
The conclusion of the matter: don’t be a jerk. Speak the truth in love. But don’t back away from the truth. Seek wisdom. And have no fear of ridiculing or mocking people in love.
Showing posts with label bible. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bible. Show all posts
Mar 18, 2010
Aug 22, 2009
God speaks through more than the Bible
From CREATIVE PRAYER by Chris Tiegreen
"So how do we communicate visually with God? How about asking him to engage us in that kind of conversation? We ask him for other kinds of guidance with the expectation he'll give it. Why limit the media through which he speaks?
A frequent rebuttal to such questioning is that God speaks through his Word and only through his Word. While we can be certain that God will not contradict his Word in the ways he speaks to us, nearly all who claim that his only mode of expression is printed words on the Bible's pages are not being honest with themselves.
How do I know? Because nearly every Christian is willing to accept the testimony of a pastor who says he was called into ministry through a combination of personal convictions, open doors of circumstances, the affirmation of others, and the inward guidance of the Holy Spirit. Nearly every Christian will attribute guidance to God when it comes in the form of an inward push or an inner peace, the counsel of godly people in conjunction with open or closed doors of opportunity, or a phrase in a conversation that seems to speak louder than the amplifiers at a rock concert and comes at exactly the right time.
Again, we wouldn't follow any guidance that contradicts Scriptures, because we know that's not from God. But we've already opened the doors of our hearts to biblical principles of counsel and accountability, circumstances and opportunities, personal convictions and the inner witness of the Holy Spirit. Those can be pretty subjective media, but when we submit them to the authority of God, ask him to lead us, trust that he will do so, and see that the guidance seems to converge in one specific direction, we feel pretty safe that we've heard his voice."
"So how do we communicate visually with God? How about asking him to engage us in that kind of conversation? We ask him for other kinds of guidance with the expectation he'll give it. Why limit the media through which he speaks?
A frequent rebuttal to such questioning is that God speaks through his Word and only through his Word. While we can be certain that God will not contradict his Word in the ways he speaks to us, nearly all who claim that his only mode of expression is printed words on the Bible's pages are not being honest with themselves.
How do I know? Because nearly every Christian is willing to accept the testimony of a pastor who says he was called into ministry through a combination of personal convictions, open doors of circumstances, the affirmation of others, and the inward guidance of the Holy Spirit. Nearly every Christian will attribute guidance to God when it comes in the form of an inward push or an inner peace, the counsel of godly people in conjunction with open or closed doors of opportunity, or a phrase in a conversation that seems to speak louder than the amplifiers at a rock concert and comes at exactly the right time.
Again, we wouldn't follow any guidance that contradicts Scriptures, because we know that's not from God. But we've already opened the doors of our hearts to biblical principles of counsel and accountability, circumstances and opportunities, personal convictions and the inner witness of the Holy Spirit. Those can be pretty subjective media, but when we submit them to the authority of God, ask him to lead us, trust that he will do so, and see that the guidance seems to converge in one specific direction, we feel pretty safe that we've heard his voice."
Sep 11, 2008
The Shack by William P. Young
It seems every few years a new fad or experience sweeps through Christianity. First there was The Da Vinci Code. Now there is The Shack. Both books have generated a fair amount of controversy. I remember back when the DVC was in full swing, people would loudly condemn the book without ever having read it; they had just heard some things about it and were parroting a view. When I finally got around to reading DVC, I remember wondering what all the fuss was about. The book just wasn't that good! And it was fantastical enough that any smart reader could figure out it was fiction. People basically got up in arms about nothing.
The current bestseller seems to be The Shack. Brief synopsis - a father loses track of his daughter on a camping trip, she is kidnapped and murdered, and three years later the father receives a suspicious note in the mail from someone claiming to be Papa (his wife's pet name for God) inviting him to come back to the Shack where his daughter was murdered and have a conversation.
The book is obviously fictional, since as far as I know God does not hang out in a cabin in the middle of nowhere. And as fiction goes, the premise is a very good one, albeit a simple vehicle for essentially a layman's treatise on some deep theological issues. I must make one comment on the book itself, meaning the structure, mechanics, and writing of the book: it's decent but also relatively poor. The author, William P. Young, does things that you simply don't do in fiction, things that any good copy editor or publisher should have caught and corrected, but I guess the mistakes lend more credibility to the author's amazing publication story (he self-published until it's popularity exploded). Any long time reader will read The Shack and mentally cringe at times, or at least begin to wonder why things seem just a little "off."
Ignore these problems, please, and read the book. It is actually really good!
One of the best ways I can think of to describe this book is that it is liberally dripping with theological concepts simplified and reduced to their basic elements...meaning you will meet The Trinity and observe and understand them without actually going over all the various aspects and views of the Trinity. The entire book reads like some great theological master "dumbing" his views down into a form that a child could understand. It's actually very refreshing and provides a new look at long held beliefs.
Every page, nearly every other paragraph has something that teaches you. People like to read Art Katz or My Utmost and feel smarter and more knowledgeable, and yet Young manages to do that in 4th grade English and is just as deep. This book is extremely profound, if that makes any sense. He has a way of explaining things that helps you understand things without "going deep."
Nearly every argument men level against God...God is unjust, God created evil, God could remove suffering, God hates us, etc...is addressed in this book through the eyes of a grieving, bitter father. One of the things I most appreciated about this book is that at the end of it, it doesn't instruct you to read your Bible more in order to know God; it just tells you to have a living relationship with Jesus. "Nothing is a ritual," as Papa puts it. This book does not point you to the Bible, although it will reawaken a sense of wonder and awe in the Bible; it instead points you to Jesus, which is the true point of Christianity all along.
The main controversy surround this book seems to be two different things. The first, as Bruce pointed out in church, is that this book is "outside the box." Well...no duh. It's fiction, and within fiction anything is possible. The author is free to make God appear as a black woman if he wants to (I pictured Tyler Perry the whole time I read this, but with the Oracle's voice from the first two Matrix movies); he even addresses this point within the text. Is it heretical to write a book where the basic premise is that Jesus got cold feet and didn't die on the cross? Not at all; obviously there is a group of people who will immediately say it's irrelevant to think about because Jesus obviously didn't, and "fiction isn't edifying anyway", but that's just so much bestial feces. Jesus spoke in parables; we do the same.
The second major controversy seems to be where Jesus supposedly mentions that there are many ways to the Father. But Jesus never actually said that anywhere in the book. Jesus speaking says that HE will go down any road to find one of His children. Meaning that from any walk of life, any people group, any tongue, any nation...Jesus will draw out His own. No where does Jesus say that anyone can get saved through means other than Him; quite the opposite, actually.
Overall, The Shack is a very good book, one that's more than a flash in a pan than DVC. The comparison to Pilgrim's Progress on the front cover is well earned. Who even reads PP anymore? No one can relate to it, and it's an extremely difficult book to get through. The Shack addresses many issues that people of our generation have with God. There is much needed understanding and healing through the Holy Spirit that can be found within this book.
People say the canon of Scripture is closed. I fully agree...but that doesn't mean the Holy Spirit can't anoint people to write books that will lead people to Christ. This is one of those books; I'd also argue The Screwtape Letters has the same anointing, just as The Chronicles of Narnia do, Pilgrim's Progress, My Utmost for His Highest, and other great works of Christian writing, both fiction and nonfiction.
The current bestseller seems to be The Shack. Brief synopsis - a father loses track of his daughter on a camping trip, she is kidnapped and murdered, and three years later the father receives a suspicious note in the mail from someone claiming to be Papa (his wife's pet name for God) inviting him to come back to the Shack where his daughter was murdered and have a conversation.
The book is obviously fictional, since as far as I know God does not hang out in a cabin in the middle of nowhere. And as fiction goes, the premise is a very good one, albeit a simple vehicle for essentially a layman's treatise on some deep theological issues. I must make one comment on the book itself, meaning the structure, mechanics, and writing of the book: it's decent but also relatively poor. The author, William P. Young, does things that you simply don't do in fiction, things that any good copy editor or publisher should have caught and corrected, but I guess the mistakes lend more credibility to the author's amazing publication story (he self-published until it's popularity exploded). Any long time reader will read The Shack and mentally cringe at times, or at least begin to wonder why things seem just a little "off."
Ignore these problems, please, and read the book. It is actually really good!
One of the best ways I can think of to describe this book is that it is liberally dripping with theological concepts simplified and reduced to their basic elements...meaning you will meet The Trinity and observe and understand them without actually going over all the various aspects and views of the Trinity. The entire book reads like some great theological master "dumbing" his views down into a form that a child could understand. It's actually very refreshing and provides a new look at long held beliefs.
Every page, nearly every other paragraph has something that teaches you. People like to read Art Katz or My Utmost and feel smarter and more knowledgeable, and yet Young manages to do that in 4th grade English and is just as deep. This book is extremely profound, if that makes any sense. He has a way of explaining things that helps you understand things without "going deep."
Nearly every argument men level against God...God is unjust, God created evil, God could remove suffering, God hates us, etc...is addressed in this book through the eyes of a grieving, bitter father. One of the things I most appreciated about this book is that at the end of it, it doesn't instruct you to read your Bible more in order to know God; it just tells you to have a living relationship with Jesus. "Nothing is a ritual," as Papa puts it. This book does not point you to the Bible, although it will reawaken a sense of wonder and awe in the Bible; it instead points you to Jesus, which is the true point of Christianity all along.
The main controversy surround this book seems to be two different things. The first, as Bruce pointed out in church, is that this book is "outside the box." Well...no duh. It's fiction, and within fiction anything is possible. The author is free to make God appear as a black woman if he wants to (I pictured Tyler Perry the whole time I read this, but with the Oracle's voice from the first two Matrix movies); he even addresses this point within the text. Is it heretical to write a book where the basic premise is that Jesus got cold feet and didn't die on the cross? Not at all; obviously there is a group of people who will immediately say it's irrelevant to think about because Jesus obviously didn't, and "fiction isn't edifying anyway", but that's just so much bestial feces. Jesus spoke in parables; we do the same.
The second major controversy seems to be where Jesus supposedly mentions that there are many ways to the Father. But Jesus never actually said that anywhere in the book. Jesus speaking says that HE will go down any road to find one of His children. Meaning that from any walk of life, any people group, any tongue, any nation...Jesus will draw out His own. No where does Jesus say that anyone can get saved through means other than Him; quite the opposite, actually.
Overall, The Shack is a very good book, one that's more than a flash in a pan than DVC. The comparison to Pilgrim's Progress on the front cover is well earned. Who even reads PP anymore? No one can relate to it, and it's an extremely difficult book to get through. The Shack addresses many issues that people of our generation have with God. There is much needed understanding and healing through the Holy Spirit that can be found within this book.
People say the canon of Scripture is closed. I fully agree...but that doesn't mean the Holy Spirit can't anoint people to write books that will lead people to Christ. This is one of those books; I'd also argue The Screwtape Letters has the same anointing, just as The Chronicles of Narnia do, Pilgrim's Progress, My Utmost for His Highest, and other great works of Christian writing, both fiction and nonfiction.
Aug 16, 2008
Thank God For Evolution
Another blog I read brought to my attention today the book Thank God For Evolution, a book which supposedly preaches the idea that evolution and creation can coexist, that the two are not mutually exclusive, and that any Christian who believes in God and Jesus can also believe in evolution...just not the liberal evolution most biologists hold to, but instead a form of evolution that basically says the universe is evolving in some grand way through evolution.
I was curious, so I began to search online for reviews and impressions of the book, and even stumbled across the author's blog.
Then through another blog, I discovered this quote from the author:
"I cannot agree that “Jesus as God’s way, truth, and life” means that only those Christians who believe certain things about Jesus or the Bible get to go to a special otherworldly place called heaven when they die. I used to believe that, but I don’t anymore. In hindsight, I see that my old belief cheapened, belittled, and impoverished the universal glory of the Gospel. What Jesus’ life and ministry were actually about is far larger and more meaningful, and offers more this-world relevance, than my old clannish, contracted “we win, you lose” understanding. More, one need not be a Christian, nor ever have read the Bible, in order to walk what is, effectively, the same path we Christians aspire to—the same “one way”to a realized, redemptive life of fulfillment and service in this world, here and now, while simultaneously blessing future generations."
John 14:6 says "Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
Anything less than that is not Christianity, not the gospel, and certainly not in line with a Creationist viewpoint. Anyone who denies that basic truth is not a Christian, pure and simple.
Just as with the currently celebrated fictional book The Shack, I am still curious what exactly the author has to say in this piece. But I'd warn anyone who wants to read either book to go into it knowing exactly what not only the author really believes, but also what the Bible has to say. And remember, the Bible is our authority, first and foremost.
Here's something else I discovered on the author's website:
Until churches in America teach and preach evolution enthusiastically, in ways that expand and enrich faith, the battle over teaching evolutionary science in public schools will never end. One of the goals of Thank God for Evolution is to assist religious believers in letting go of attachment to literal interpretations of their otherworldly, supernatural sacred stories/myths in order to wholeheartedly embrace an evidential, empirical worldview. Surely, this turn needs to happen in order for radically diverse religious people to cooperate in service of a just and sustainable future. Anyone who believes that we can achieve a healthy future for planet Earth and its species without billions of religious people being commited to it is simply not thinking clearly.
An interesting fact about the author: his wife is an atheist.
Use discernment.
I was curious, so I began to search online for reviews and impressions of the book, and even stumbled across the author's blog.
Then through another blog, I discovered this quote from the author:
"I cannot agree that “Jesus as God’s way, truth, and life” means that only those Christians who believe certain things about Jesus or the Bible get to go to a special otherworldly place called heaven when they die. I used to believe that, but I don’t anymore. In hindsight, I see that my old belief cheapened, belittled, and impoverished the universal glory of the Gospel. What Jesus’ life and ministry were actually about is far larger and more meaningful, and offers more this-world relevance, than my old clannish, contracted “we win, you lose” understanding. More, one need not be a Christian, nor ever have read the Bible, in order to walk what is, effectively, the same path we Christians aspire to—the same “one way”to a realized, redemptive life of fulfillment and service in this world, here and now, while simultaneously blessing future generations."
John 14:6 says "Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
Anything less than that is not Christianity, not the gospel, and certainly not in line with a Creationist viewpoint. Anyone who denies that basic truth is not a Christian, pure and simple.
Just as with the currently celebrated fictional book The Shack, I am still curious what exactly the author has to say in this piece. But I'd warn anyone who wants to read either book to go into it knowing exactly what not only the author really believes, but also what the Bible has to say. And remember, the Bible is our authority, first and foremost.
Here's something else I discovered on the author's website:
Until churches in America teach and preach evolution enthusiastically, in ways that expand and enrich faith, the battle over teaching evolutionary science in public schools will never end. One of the goals of Thank God for Evolution is to assist religious believers in letting go of attachment to literal interpretations of their otherworldly, supernatural sacred stories/myths in order to wholeheartedly embrace an evidential, empirical worldview. Surely, this turn needs to happen in order for radically diverse religious people to cooperate in service of a just and sustainable future. Anyone who believes that we can achieve a healthy future for planet Earth and its species without billions of religious people being commited to it is simply not thinking clearly.
An interesting fact about the author: his wife is an atheist.
Use discernment.
Aug 7, 2008
How did Jude quote Enoch?
One of the side effects of me choosing a new Bible translation to read through has been an increased interest in Biblical study. I've been reading the Word a lot more recently, trying to go more deeply too. Every day I seem to see something new and cool, whether its a piece of end times theology, some insight into a misunderstood part of the Deity, or just something unique that catches my eye.
Tonight, one of those "eye-catchers" got me. Jude 14-16.
14 It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones, 15 to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” 16 These are grumblers, malcontents, following their own sinful desires; they are loud-mouthed boasters, showing favoritism to gain advantage.
For those don't know, Enoch is one of the first people mentioned in the Bible, the "seventh from Adam" as it says above. Specifically, Genesis 5:18-24.
The Book of Jude was written roughly 69 A.D., yet Enoch lived on this earth roughly 3100 B.C. That's a heck of a time difference. So how did Jude know what Enoch used to say back then? We don't have any other records of what Enoch might have said, how did Jude find out?
My guess is that it was the Holy Spirit. And Jude had no prior knowledge of what Enoch might have said before he wrote it down.
And on a related note...what is he talking about? Surely there weren't many false teachers in Enoch's day; the earth was essentially Godless anyway, no need of false teachers, plus it's not like there were tens of thousands living.
A hunch? Enoch was prophesying about the upcoming Millennial reign of Christ...an event which still hasn't happened yet.
Crazy stuff.
--------
Oh, and a side WOW moment: Jude 5
5 Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.
Can that be any clearer? It was JESUS who brought the Jews out of Egypt! It was JESUS power as GOD that did it!
If the Jews can be used as an example of a Christian's walk with God, then it was also Jesus who saved us from our sin, regenerated us clean in the "Red Sea", led us into the wilderness where we learned to rely on Him and cast off sin, and eventually lead us into the promised land of His riches and blessings!
I realize a New Testament passage out of Jude won't convince any Jews that Jesus is their Messiah, but for us believers already, this is powerful stuff!
"GLORY!"
Tonight, one of those "eye-catchers" got me. Jude 14-16.
14 It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones, 15 to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” 16 These are grumblers, malcontents, following their own sinful desires; they are loud-mouthed boasters, showing favoritism to gain advantage.
For those don't know, Enoch is one of the first people mentioned in the Bible, the "seventh from Adam" as it says above. Specifically, Genesis 5:18-24.
18 When Jared had lived 162 years he fathered Enoch...
21 When Enoch had lived 65 years, he fathered Methuselah. 22 Enoch walked with God after he fathered Methuselah 300 years and had other sons and daughters. 23 Thus all the days of Enoch were 365 years. 24 Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him.
Verse 24 could also be translated, "was not found." Meaning that Enoch did not die; God brought him into heaven. In a moment, Enoch was walking on the earth, and the next moment, he was just gone; not dead, but in the prescence of God. In all of Scripture, this has only happened to two people, Enoch and Elijah. (Bruce once pointed out to me that Hebrews 9:27 says that "It is appointed to men once to die, and after that the judgement...", which then raises the question as to when Enoch and Elijah will die and face the judgement we will all face.)The Book of Jude was written roughly 69 A.D., yet Enoch lived on this earth roughly 3100 B.C. That's a heck of a time difference. So how did Jude know what Enoch used to say back then? We don't have any other records of what Enoch might have said, how did Jude find out?
My guess is that it was the Holy Spirit. And Jude had no prior knowledge of what Enoch might have said before he wrote it down.
And on a related note...what is he talking about? Surely there weren't many false teachers in Enoch's day; the earth was essentially Godless anyway, no need of false teachers, plus it's not like there were tens of thousands living.
A hunch? Enoch was prophesying about the upcoming Millennial reign of Christ...an event which still hasn't happened yet.
Crazy stuff.
--------
Oh, and a side WOW moment: Jude 5
5 Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.
Can that be any clearer? It was JESUS who brought the Jews out of Egypt! It was JESUS power as GOD that did it!
If the Jews can be used as an example of a Christian's walk with God, then it was also Jesus who saved us from our sin, regenerated us clean in the "Red Sea", led us into the wilderness where we learned to rely on Him and cast off sin, and eventually lead us into the promised land of His riches and blessings!
I realize a New Testament passage out of Jude won't convince any Jews that Jesus is their Messiah, but for us believers already, this is powerful stuff!
"GLORY!"
Aug 3, 2008
Quick Study of Bible Translations
Since it has been brought to my attention that a few people don't know why I was looking for a new Bible, because some people believe that a Bible is simply just a Bible, any one will do...I thought I'd point out a few different things.
First off, the Bible is not simply just THE Bible. There is actually a difference between Catholic and Protestant Bibles. The main difference is that the Catholic Bible has extra books not found in the Protestant Bible. These books are known as the Apocrypha books. For various reasons these books are not considered Scripture, but can still be beneficial to readers. They are just not the inspired word of God.
Since I'm Protestant, I'll focus a little more on common Protestant Bibles.
The first thing to keep in mind is that the Bible was written by many different authors over many centuries, and yet they all flow together and were all inspired by the Holy Spirit. That's one of the main reasons we know that the Bible is the inspired word of God. The Bible was written in three languages: Hebrew, Greek, and a small bit of Aramaic (the Book of Daniel). We do not have ANY of the original texts; all we have are copies and translations. From the sheer multitude of versions we have, we are able to determine exactly what the originals said; there might be some variations, but if we have 3 manuscripts, and 2 agree, odds are the original was in line with those 2.
There have been various "authoritative" texts throughout time, such as the Latin Vulgate and others. Jesus himself used a translation and not the original texts. He used the commonly accepted Scriptures at the time. In the last few hundred years, we have our own translations of the original texts. I'm going to go over a few of them, but not all.
King James Version. Some would call this the "Authorized" version...all that means is that King James authorized it's translation way back in 1611. Jesus didn't authorize this version, just some English monarch. Many will claim that the King James is the only Bible worth reading, that all other versions are demonic and heretical. The funny thing that these people don't realize is that the KJV they are reading is the 11th or 12th version; the original original sounded more like Shakespeare.
When it comes to the KJV, I have a hard time accepting KJV Only people as Christians. That might be a hold over from the days I was surrounded by legalistic people, but I still have my doubts. I respect people who prefer it over other translations, but the instance they start saying that it is the ONLY inspired word of God, I just have to laugh at them.
Funny cartoon about it.
New King James Version. I have not read this one extensively, but it reads very similar to the KJV but without all the "thees" and "thous". Still pretty high English and hard to read at times, though. Expect to be doing your own translations on the fly for this one.
New Internation Version. This is the version I read the most growing up, this and the KJV; KJV was at church and school, and the NIV was what I read at home. Very readable, it's been the favorite of many over the years, yet it also is one of the more controversial for various reasons.
The Living Bible. A paraphase, this is not a translation of the Bible. It is similar to The Message, in that someone is trying get thoughts and ideas across; saying what Jesus meant to say rather than what Jesus really said, for example.
The New Living Bible. This is actually a true translation that reads similar to the Living Bible or The Message, but is closer to the originals. Very readable, it's a great translation for devotions, but not really suited for traditional Bible study.
New Revised Standard Version. Sometimes hailed as the "Gender Neutral Bible", this one is 'free from man-made theological viewpoints', as my professor used to say. I like to call this the "liberal Bible" because of the many liberal theologians that perfer it. It's a VERY literal translation, very wooden, hard to understand at times.
English Standard Version. The latest translation on this list, this is the Bible I have decided to start reading extensively from the most. It's a very readable translation, and also the most faithful to the originals that also try to utilize all modern English. It's not awkward to read at all, I'm really enjoying it!
So that's a brief reason why looking for a new Bible is a complicated affair. Not only do you need to choose what translation you want, but you have to look for different features too, such as a concordance, illustrations, maps, etc.
Hence, I decided to get a ESV Study Bible. It's on order and will be delivered to me when printed. Here's a link, I believe I ordered the ESV Literary Study Bible.
Any questions? I could talk more at length on this subject, this was the bare minimum.
First off, the Bible is not simply just THE Bible. There is actually a difference between Catholic and Protestant Bibles. The main difference is that the Catholic Bible has extra books not found in the Protestant Bible. These books are known as the Apocrypha books. For various reasons these books are not considered Scripture, but can still be beneficial to readers. They are just not the inspired word of God.
Since I'm Protestant, I'll focus a little more on common Protestant Bibles.
The first thing to keep in mind is that the Bible was written by many different authors over many centuries, and yet they all flow together and were all inspired by the Holy Spirit. That's one of the main reasons we know that the Bible is the inspired word of God. The Bible was written in three languages: Hebrew, Greek, and a small bit of Aramaic (the Book of Daniel). We do not have ANY of the original texts; all we have are copies and translations. From the sheer multitude of versions we have, we are able to determine exactly what the originals said; there might be some variations, but if we have 3 manuscripts, and 2 agree, odds are the original was in line with those 2.
There have been various "authoritative" texts throughout time, such as the Latin Vulgate and others. Jesus himself used a translation and not the original texts. He used the commonly accepted Scriptures at the time. In the last few hundred years, we have our own translations of the original texts. I'm going to go over a few of them, but not all.
King James Version. Some would call this the "Authorized" version...all that means is that King James authorized it's translation way back in 1611. Jesus didn't authorize this version, just some English monarch. Many will claim that the King James is the only Bible worth reading, that all other versions are demonic and heretical. The funny thing that these people don't realize is that the KJV they are reading is the 11th or 12th version; the original original sounded more like Shakespeare.
When it comes to the KJV, I have a hard time accepting KJV Only people as Christians. That might be a hold over from the days I was surrounded by legalistic people, but I still have my doubts. I respect people who prefer it over other translations, but the instance they start saying that it is the ONLY inspired word of God, I just have to laugh at them.
Funny cartoon about it.
New King James Version. I have not read this one extensively, but it reads very similar to the KJV but without all the "thees" and "thous". Still pretty high English and hard to read at times, though. Expect to be doing your own translations on the fly for this one.
New Internation Version. This is the version I read the most growing up, this and the KJV; KJV was at church and school, and the NIV was what I read at home. Very readable, it's been the favorite of many over the years, yet it also is one of the more controversial for various reasons.
The Living Bible. A paraphase, this is not a translation of the Bible. It is similar to The Message, in that someone is trying get thoughts and ideas across; saying what Jesus meant to say rather than what Jesus really said, for example.
The New Living Bible. This is actually a true translation that reads similar to the Living Bible or The Message, but is closer to the originals. Very readable, it's a great translation for devotions, but not really suited for traditional Bible study.
New Revised Standard Version. Sometimes hailed as the "Gender Neutral Bible", this one is 'free from man-made theological viewpoints', as my professor used to say. I like to call this the "liberal Bible" because of the many liberal theologians that perfer it. It's a VERY literal translation, very wooden, hard to understand at times.
English Standard Version. The latest translation on this list, this is the Bible I have decided to start reading extensively from the most. It's a very readable translation, and also the most faithful to the originals that also try to utilize all modern English. It's not awkward to read at all, I'm really enjoying it!
So that's a brief reason why looking for a new Bible is a complicated affair. Not only do you need to choose what translation you want, but you have to look for different features too, such as a concordance, illustrations, maps, etc.
Hence, I decided to get a ESV Study Bible. It's on order and will be delivered to me when printed. Here's a link, I believe I ordered the ESV Literary Study Bible.
Any questions? I could talk more at length on this subject, this was the bare minimum.
Mar 3, 2008
Ruminations on the Gospel of Mark
So the Gospel of Mark might have been written around 68 AD. One theory has it that Mark, the author, was an associate of Peter who wrote down many of Peter's teachings (and in this case, remembrances of Jesus). Some also think that Mark might have been the young man who ran away naked after being seized by the Romans.
It is possible that Mark might have been all of the above. In Jewish culture, a young man was roughly 12 or 13 years old. If he had been that age, and let's say that happened roughly around 32 AD (or even 28 AD), that would make Mark around 48 years old at minimum. So it is highly possible that Peter's disciple Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark.
My professor argues that Mark was written in Galilee for Galileans. Not so sure...there is a strong Roman presence in Mark. I'm thinking Mark wrote it for the persecuted Christians in Rome under Nero.
So is Mark a story of Jesus or can we accurately treat it as an eyewitness report, since the majority of Mark would have been from the perspective of Peter? Story vs first hand account, or report, is the question. My professor argues that Mark is a story, written through the lens of one or multiple people, and that the book was shaped by many factors (Roman persecution, nationality, age, etc). Obviously he doesn't subscribe to the belief that the Holy Spirit might have had a hand in things.
Pretty interesting that God used a disciple of an apostle to write a Gospel. So I guess Peter must have laid hands on Mark and baptized him in the Holy Spirit. But I guess that when Mark died, the Holy Spirit died with him. Or at least his "apostles'" power, since as everyone knows, the gifts of the Holy Spirit were only for the apostles and the early church.
Right?
It is possible that Mark might have been all of the above. In Jewish culture, a young man was roughly 12 or 13 years old. If he had been that age, and let's say that happened roughly around 32 AD (or even 28 AD), that would make Mark around 48 years old at minimum. So it is highly possible that Peter's disciple Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark.
My professor argues that Mark was written in Galilee for Galileans. Not so sure...there is a strong Roman presence in Mark. I'm thinking Mark wrote it for the persecuted Christians in Rome under Nero.
So is Mark a story of Jesus or can we accurately treat it as an eyewitness report, since the majority of Mark would have been from the perspective of Peter? Story vs first hand account, or report, is the question. My professor argues that Mark is a story, written through the lens of one or multiple people, and that the book was shaped by many factors (Roman persecution, nationality, age, etc). Obviously he doesn't subscribe to the belief that the Holy Spirit might have had a hand in things.
Pretty interesting that God used a disciple of an apostle to write a Gospel. So I guess Peter must have laid hands on Mark and baptized him in the Holy Spirit. But I guess that when Mark died, the Holy Spirit died with him. Or at least his "apostles'" power, since as everyone knows, the gifts of the Holy Spirit were only for the apostles and the early church.
Right?
Feb 10, 2008
Do hymnals affect our worship?
Next time you are at church, try to take special notice of what you do during the music. Are you holding a hymnal? Are your hands lifted up in praise? Do you stare at the instrumentalists, or at the song leader? Perhaps you simply stare at the hymnal or overhead, or maybe at the other church members? Maybe there is that one special someone you watch each week, and think: “I wish I was as free to worship as them”; or “Why can’t they just honor God with their voice? Why do they have to raise their hands and hop around like that? Who are they trying to impress?”Have you ever noticed that we really didn’t have so many problems with singing in church back when everyone used hymnals? According to a simple Google search, the first dedicated hymnals started showing up in the ninth century. Prior to this hymns were collected in the back of other books; they obviously deserved their own special section, just like the Psalms are their own special book in the Bible. Hymnals became the predominant collection of spiritual songs among nearly every denomination of Protestantism. The only things that differentiated were the actual hymns as well as how they were performed.
In many modern churches, the congregation has ditched the hymnal for the overhead. Instead of bending your head to read from a book, you are now encouraged to look above the worship leader or group in order to read the lyrics. This has encouraged more music leaders to take chances on newer songs, as well as providing a sort of uniformity across multiple churches. But what has this simple 45 degree change done for our modern church goer? It has freed their hands.
1Ti 2:8 “So wherever you assemble, I want men to pray with holy hands lifted up to God, free from anger and controversy.”
Does lifting your hands in worship draw you closer to God? The Bible really doesn’t say one way or the other. There are many who have attempted to twist Scripture to prove either argument, that it is either encouraged or discouraged to lift your hands while singing. However, using the Bible to prove whether you should or should not do it can be a tricky thing. The Bible also shows characters such as David dancing and shouting before the Lord, and while there are many churches that frown upon such outward displays of emotion, not once did God rebuke them for doing it. Consequently we have many churches today that encourage such outward displays of joy in God.
But this brings us back to the original question. What do you do during the singing section of your church service? Do you think more people will be involved with the hymns and songs if they do not have a hymnal in their hands? Will it encourage people to show more emotion, to perhaps sing with a smile on their face? Or do we only honor God by providing a worthy performance with our voices?
Next church service, why not try singing without your hymnal. For all you know, it might be a great blessing to you not to use one. Perhaps you could organize a service where everyone already knows all the songs that will be sung, even if you can only sing choruses. It is possible that if more people let go of their hymnals and free their hands in worship churches will start to see a new life and passion that wasn’t there before.
It’s worth a try. It might bring a new spiritual life and revival to your church.
Feb 2, 2008
Biblical Arguments class
I signed up for a Communications class at the U of M that is a "Special Topics" course. The topic being "Biblical Arguments." Taking it purely as an elective, I went into the class not expecting much, other than my professor's vague email warning that a 1000 level Comm class was a prerequisite.
But except for one instance where he was talking about some classic model used in arguments, I've been loving this class! Loving it so much I was eager to go on Wednesday!
The class is set up pretty simply. The professor will basically be a forum moderator, introducing the topic and Scripture passage, assigning two students to be discussion catalysts, and then he lets us talk. We have a pretty diverse group, so the discussions have been lively and multi-faceted. We primarily have Catholics (mix between lapsed and active), one Hindu, one Jew (and she's pretty hardcore), a few Lutherans, couple of agnostics, at least one atheist, and me, representing...who knows anymore. I introduced myself as a charasmatic Wesleyan, but then clarified it as more "Pentebaptistcostal."
Whatever. The Bible is true.
And our topics have been great too! We first went over Genesis 1 and 2, and the 2 separate accounts of Creation. That took the tail end of the first day and the entire second class session. Are there really two separate accounts? Only two of us in the class were unable to see "proof" of two different Creations. But of more interest to me was that God created/designed Adam, but didn't place him in the Garden until a day or more later. So where was Adam this whole time?
The next class session we went over The Fall...specifically, who was to blame? Found out we have some feminists in the group, although that is really no surprise. Still, it was a great discussion. I think we generally agreed that both of them were to blame, although some would still argue that God was to blame for putting the tree in the garden in the first place.
Last class we discussed a passage in Judges, where one of the judges makes a vow before the Lord that he would offer up as a burnt offering whoever came out of his house first upon his return from battle. Alas, his daughter comes out. He sends her off into the wilderness for two months so she can bemoan her virginity, and then she comes back to him so he can fulfill his vow.
So did he kill her? I believe I was the only one in the class who argued that he didn't (and thanks to Johnathan for that: him and I went over it before class), although I don't know what the professor thinks. There are a whole list of reasons why I don't think he killed her, but I do believe he kept his vow. He dedicated her to the temple where she served the rest of her life. It was strange; even the feminists wanted her to die, just so they could stick it to God or Christianity, I think. But then again, no one really cares that babies are getting slaughtered. Or the millions of people oppressed under Islam. Dhimmitude is living death.
Anyways, this has been a great class so far! I've already developed a reputation, but that's nothing new. I had to prove that without the Judeo-Christian worldview womens' rights would not exist as we know them today. I don't think many in the class liked hearing that.
Ah well. Truth, you know?
But except for one instance where he was talking about some classic model used in arguments, I've been loving this class! Loving it so much I was eager to go on Wednesday!
The class is set up pretty simply. The professor will basically be a forum moderator, introducing the topic and Scripture passage, assigning two students to be discussion catalysts, and then he lets us talk. We have a pretty diverse group, so the discussions have been lively and multi-faceted. We primarily have Catholics (mix between lapsed and active), one Hindu, one Jew (and she's pretty hardcore), a few Lutherans, couple of agnostics, at least one atheist, and me, representing...who knows anymore. I introduced myself as a charasmatic Wesleyan, but then clarified it as more "Pentebaptistcostal."
Whatever. The Bible is true.
And our topics have been great too! We first went over Genesis 1 and 2, and the 2 separate accounts of Creation. That took the tail end of the first day and the entire second class session. Are there really two separate accounts? Only two of us in the class were unable to see "proof" of two different Creations. But of more interest to me was that God created/designed Adam, but didn't place him in the Garden until a day or more later. So where was Adam this whole time?
The next class session we went over The Fall...specifically, who was to blame? Found out we have some feminists in the group, although that is really no surprise. Still, it was a great discussion. I think we generally agreed that both of them were to blame, although some would still argue that God was to blame for putting the tree in the garden in the first place.
Last class we discussed a passage in Judges, where one of the judges makes a vow before the Lord that he would offer up as a burnt offering whoever came out of his house first upon his return from battle. Alas, his daughter comes out. He sends her off into the wilderness for two months so she can bemoan her virginity, and then she comes back to him so he can fulfill his vow.
So did he kill her? I believe I was the only one in the class who argued that he didn't (and thanks to Johnathan for that: him and I went over it before class), although I don't know what the professor thinks. There are a whole list of reasons why I don't think he killed her, but I do believe he kept his vow. He dedicated her to the temple where she served the rest of her life. It was strange; even the feminists wanted her to die, just so they could stick it to God or Christianity, I think. But then again, no one really cares that babies are getting slaughtered. Or the millions of people oppressed under Islam. Dhimmitude is living death.
Anyways, this has been a great class so far! I've already developed a reputation, but that's nothing new. I had to prove that without the Judeo-Christian worldview womens' rights would not exist as we know them today. I don't think many in the class liked hearing that.
Ah well. Truth, you know?
Jan 31, 2007
Salt and Light in Blogger u2.0
And I've converted to Blogger 2.0. Why? Cause it wouldn't let me do otherwise. Sigh...I've "Made the Switch."
Two thoughts tonight. The first...I've noticed that it is getting easier and easier to not go to church. Part of it has to do with the schedule I'm on. Having been up for work since 3 am, unless I manage to grab a few hours nap in the afternoon, come 7, 7:30, I'm dragging. I'm sure I'd feel really good and coherent come the end of church around 9:30.
I know I need to be at church. I want to be at church; preferably on Saturday night so I can see my friends, but Wednesday works just as well. Pray that God will change my work schedule so that I can begin attending regularly again. There is a possibility I might get a part-time baker's position, with hours closer to 1-6 pm than my current 5am-10am. Pray that something works out.
Ok, the second thing for this evening. I was reading through One Step Closer: Why U2 Matters to Those Seeking God by Christian Scharen (actually a really, really terrible and poorly written book), but some scripture he used struck out to me. Specifically, Matt 5:13-4 (salt and light of the world).
(EDIT- Ok, the book is not horrible. It's by far not the worse book out there. I've just noticed some errors with it, both factual and textual, that I didn't like. I apologize if I came across as unduly critical. I guess it's the editor in me...)
What is meant here by "salt" and "light?" Since they are two different words, defining two different objects (one physical, one quasi-physical...lol), I'm gonna assume that they are referring to two seperate things. But the usage of both words is similar, and really kinda mean the same thing. So what is that thing (or things)?
What put this thought into my mind was the way the author of that U2 book, as well as Jesus, used these examples. Right now I'm lacking the words to explain what I was thinking, but these words sort of stuck with me and I can't seem to get rid of them. I'm just really curious what is being referred to specifically here. I've always heard these verses/words interchangeably, but I somehow doubt that is the case.
I'm wondering if a proper Biblical study will yield some answers.
Any thoughts?
Two thoughts tonight. The first...I've noticed that it is getting easier and easier to not go to church. Part of it has to do with the schedule I'm on. Having been up for work since 3 am, unless I manage to grab a few hours nap in the afternoon, come 7, 7:30, I'm dragging. I'm sure I'd feel really good and coherent come the end of church around 9:30.
I know I need to be at church. I want to be at church; preferably on Saturday night so I can see my friends, but Wednesday works just as well. Pray that God will change my work schedule so that I can begin attending regularly again. There is a possibility I might get a part-time baker's position, with hours closer to 1-6 pm than my current 5am-10am. Pray that something works out.
Ok, the second thing for this evening. I was reading through One Step Closer: Why U2 Matters to Those Seeking God by Christian Scharen (actually a really, really terrible and poorly written book), but some scripture he used struck out to me. Specifically, Matt 5:13-4 (salt and light of the world).
(EDIT- Ok, the book is not horrible. It's by far not the worse book out there. I've just noticed some errors with it, both factual and textual, that I didn't like. I apologize if I came across as unduly critical. I guess it's the editor in me...)
What is meant here by "salt" and "light?" Since they are two different words, defining two different objects (one physical, one quasi-physical...lol), I'm gonna assume that they are referring to two seperate things. But the usage of both words is similar, and really kinda mean the same thing. So what is that thing (or things)?
What put this thought into my mind was the way the author of that U2 book, as well as Jesus, used these examples. Right now I'm lacking the words to explain what I was thinking, but these words sort of stuck with me and I can't seem to get rid of them. I'm just really curious what is being referred to specifically here. I've always heard these verses/words interchangeably, but I somehow doubt that is the case.
I'm wondering if a proper Biblical study will yield some answers.
Any thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
