The Bible Archive

Evolution is a funny word that gets bandied about. Saying it in different context evokes different responses, sometimes laughter and sometimes justified anger. In fact, I’ve been in conversations where a person is using evolution in one sense and me in a completely different sense and both of us have gotten riled up until we pinned down our terms.

Justin over at Politics and Religion has begun a series on Christianity’s Downfall by starting off and highlighting fundamentalism. In hopes of education rather than attacking he points out that fundamentalism (in general and in Christianity particularly) is (1) dangerous (2) intolerant (3) rigid (4) illogical and (5) surface-reading which he equates with literalism. Of course, he doesn’t delineate his points as such and is careful to point out what the fundamentalist is rigidly adhering to (and thus obviously dangerous) are the specific doctrines that make Christians who they are: but he does point out that “in many cases, the fundamentalist Christian believes what he…does because it was told to him” and he adheres to a strict literalism. I’ll deal with both these points below.

Sometimes verses like Romans 12:1 fall into the Christian canyon of sanctified bumper-sticker sayings. Sometimes it’s a call to arms for hormone-crazed teens (or so youth teachers have often taught): in light of God being a good God, present your bodies to him—undefiled by immorality. Other times it’s phrased in such a way as if it were obligatory payback; kind of how you treat a good boss.

This material is Copyright © 1970 by the Trustees of the Estate of C.S. Lewis, All Rights Resered. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number, 70-129851 from God in the Dock Essays on Theology and Ethics Edited by Walter Hooper. I have placed it here for storage purposes since this section of my copy of the book is falling apart and as such I tried to keep as much of the original paragraph breaks, Brittish-isms and footnotes although I incorporated those into the text within brackets. I thought the essay spoke to Today particularly well. You can also see some of Lingimish’s comments here, here and here.

Rebecca has a post looking at the word propitiation, its usage and a challenge to figure out another word that can fit in its place. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your bend in modern bible translations) I’m all for the actual word propitiation but I also readily admit that there might be a shift of usage depending on the Biblical author. Paul might be making an allusion to the OT mercy seat and John may be referring to what the mercy seat offering accomplished in a general sense. So whereas Paul might be saying "God publicly (instead of behind a veil) revealed the place where God’s wrath was turned away and satisfied in the person of His Son on the cross" John would be saying "Jesus Christ is the atoning sacrifice for the world, but for us believers especially."

Be that as it may, I’ll play and try to update (if not dumb down) the actual word.

In my drawn out process of looking over Bibles I recently noticed two things worth mentioning. This afternoon I read through Hebrews in the HCSB and it was fantastic. The language was clear and tied the thoughtflow of the book together quite nicely (if you’ve ever slogged through the book with the NASB–my favorite translation–you?ll appreciate it). Yesterday I went through 1st Corinthians with the ESV and wondered why they chose “wife” in 1 Corinthians 11 instead of “woman” (which most other versions use)? Lastly this passage from Titus makes me laugh in any version: “One of Crete’s own prophets has said it: ‘Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.’ He has surely told the truth!” (TNIV) A Cretan saying “Cretans are always liars.” And Paul says “That Cretan didn’t lie–he told the truth!!” I guess it gives me the geeky-giggles.

When looking at John 3:14-16 I’ve encountered three major
views which expand, restrict or flatten the text. The labels which I will be
using are placed in an effort to categorize the interpretation not to refer to
any of them pejoratively. Note that there may be some intermingling of these categories
but this post isn’t concerned with that. Neither is this post concerned with
any theological framework that may be influencing the interpretation. My sole
purpose is to see if either of the interpretations handles the material
correctly and if it supports the subsequent thesis.

I don’t usually like dramatized audio Bibles. I like to follow the text and picture it in my head—be it the narrative, the poetry or the argument. But when I came across this upcoming audio Bible (HT: Lingamesh) I got absurdly excited. Samuel Jackson. Denzel Washington. Eartha Kitt! Some folk will raise the banner and call summon the jihad—it’s inevitable. Personally,
I’m dying to hear it. Here’s the full cast (PDF) and here’s an audio link.

Today is 6/6/6 so I figured I’d write a post pointing out who is the anti-Christ, with a countdown to the 2nd coming. Some Covenant Theologians out there would actually believe that I would do that since I’m a wild-eyed fanatical dispensationalist who just doesn’t see the structure of the Bible. Absurd. Allow me to rant for a second:

I should acknowledge that on this text, interpretations
differ. And here I don’t speak of the theistic interpretation versus a
naturalistic interpretation, but rather between Christians who look at the
Bible as inspired, inerrant and profitable. That being said it would behoove
any believer to tread lightly when considering tearing an alternate
interpretation of this text as being worldly or Satanic. We can agree that
these things are true—but our interpretations may be false. That being the
case, here are some views, their Scriptural support and their inherent problems.

John Foxe

“In every thing give thanks; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus
concerning you” (1 Thess.5:18).

The next time you read your English Bible, remember the following three
incidents and then give thanks that you have a Bible to read in English.