Theologian

Three Controversial Church Leaders Executed Secretly in China

China to Install Bishop Without Papal Approval
(when i first read this headline, i thought it said “PayPal” instead of “Papal”)

Brooklyn mom who cited demons is charged in son’s pillow slaying

Even though i posted this over on Theology Online , i liked it so much i am posting it here too…
Watch a Dramatic Presentation of Hebrews 9 and 10 using the best English translation available, the ESV!

I don’t really like the way the ESV translates this verse…

The woman Folly is loud; she is seductive and knows nothing.

The “seductive” part just doesn’t seem to fit in with the being loud and knowing nothing. It seems very much out of place in the sentence.

The Hebrew word behind it is pethayuth, which means simple or naive.

I much prefer the NASB here…

The woman of folly is boisterous, She is naive and knows nothing.

I may be reaching here, but i saw what appears to be an interesting parallel in the Scriptures.

The parable of the banquet…

But he said to him, “A man once gave a great banquet and invited many. And at the time for the banquet he sent his servant to say to those who had been invited, ‘Come, for everything is now ready.’ But they all alike began to make excuses. The first said to him, ‘I have bought a field, and I must go out and see it. Please have me excused.’ And another said, ‘I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to examine them. Please have me excused.’ And another said, ‘I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come.’ (Luk 14:16-20, ESV)

The rules for warfare and who is excused…

Then the officers shall speak to the people, saying, ‘Is there any man who has built a new house and has not dedicated it? Let him go back to his house, lest he die in the battle and another man dedicate it. And is there any man who has planted a vineyard and has not enjoyed its fruit? Let him go back to his house, lest he die in the battle and another man enjoy its fruit. And is there any man who has betrothed a wife and has not taken her? Let him go back to his house, lest he die in the battle and another man take her.’ (Deu 20:5-7, ESV)

The excuses pretty much mirror each other…

banquet excuses: bought a field and must see it, bought oxen and not examined them, married a wife
warfare excuses: built a house and not dedicated it, planted a vineyard and has not enjoyed it, married a wife

So the first excuse has to do with property, the second with having fruitful fields (the oxen would imply plowing a field to make it fruitful), and the last has to do with marriage.

This is interesting to me as the excuses for warfare are proper excuses, but those of the banquet are not. It is as if those invited to such a great celebration treated it as if it was going off to war. Talk about turning something upside down!

When we start calling something bad that God calls good we are indeed in trouble.

Catholic Fights to Have Church Lift Celibacy Rule

Dawkins campaigns to keep God out of classroom

New U.S. dollar coins hide ‘In God We Trust’

The ESV Blog has a story of temptation regarding giving away ESV’s won at a contest. Even with Godly things we can have sinful inclinations.

As Thanksgiving is upon us i got to thinking…I know that Christian households can spend time thanking God for their many blessings on this day. But who do unbelievers thank?

You always hear of general thoughts like…”i am thankful for my job”…”i am thankful for my family”, but who are they really giving thanks to?

If pressed, would an unbeliever admit that being thankful for their job is really thanking themselves for having the skill to perform their job?

Is being thankful for their family really thanking their parents for bringing them into this world?

Or is it just a general feeling of thankfulness with no direct object to direct the thankfulness towards?

Thanksgiving without the proper object as its focus is just as bad as faith without the proper object as its focus.

Wal-Mart relents,boycott called off

A Free-for-All on Science and Religion

This topic is not about Bible versions, but about the more general translating from one language into another.

It has often been said in arguing against KJVO types that no translation from one language into another can be perfect. It is my opinion that this argument should be dropped by any Bible believing apologist.

My main problem with the argument is that Jesus spoke Aramaic, yet the NT books that recorded His words were in Greek. So to say that you can’t perfectly go from Aramaic to Greek would be saying that the original manuscripts are not perfect because something was lost in translation between the Aramaic speaking Jesus and the Greek writing NT authors.

Josh and I are going to be having a debate on Baptism. As he is Baptist and I am Presbyterian it should be quite interesting. This is one of the few areas we differ on doctrine. The debate will be over on the Theology Online blog.

Bush Brings Catholics and Protestants Together for Mass

Evangelicals revive Christianity in Europe

Students sue over Christian rights at colleges

New Line a believer in faith market

In the beginning: scientists get ready to hunt for God particle

Funny Stuff

Good Bible to bring on baptismals

Good Bible if you need to do some duct work

One of the arguments against the Byzantine text is that there is no good proof of the text-type existing before the 4th century.

I started thinking about that line of logic, and am finding it wanting.

We can’t prove that something did not exist, and therefore should keep this out of the argument used against the Byzantine Text.

I can remember back a while when folks said that the Gospels were wrong because they spoke of Pilate. The argument was that since no artifacts have ever been found with his insignia, he was not a historical figure. Of course, years later they ended up finding coins with his insignia on them, and we never heard that argument again.

Besides all of this, it is not usually taken into consideration, even by pro-Byzantine folks, that there may be no manuscripts because the copies were considered superior to the originals as per the Hebrew custom. The Hebrews would take great pains in making a copy of an OT manuscript. After they made a copy, the copy was considered superior because it was the same as the original, but without the wear and tear. They would then put the old manuscript into storage, and when the storage filled up they would get rid of them with some type of ceremony. Perhaps the early Church took their lead from the Jewish scribes in this area.

Another argument that i think needs to be put aside is that none of the pre-4th century Church Fathers quoted from a Byzantine text-type. This is not a bad argument on the surface, but when you find out that none of those Church Fathers come from the Byzantine area you realize the hole in the argument.