Monday, May 26, 2008

ESV Study Bible Coming in October

Crossway will be releasing the ESV Study Bible on October 15, 2008. This looks like a real winner of a study bible. Based on the limited pdfs I've seen, the NIV Study Bible has some competition finally. I just wish they'd offer some samples from the Old Testament instead of just Luke and John.

An earlier date would be better though. After all schools are more likely to switch to the ESV Study Bible if they could see it in July and August and then have the campus bookstores have them in stock at the end of August. I think waiting until October 15 is really making it harder for the ESV Study Bible to make enroads.

Plus I want this study bible now. And if someone at crossway wants to send me a review copy I would be quite pleased to give a more detailed impression of it here.

You can also see the introduction to Luke here

Christianbook.com has this on pre-sale for $29.99. which is $20 off the listed price and I don't make a dime from giving you this link.

Labels: , ,

Friday, May 2, 2008

The Trinity in the Old Testament

According to Gerald Bray, it is not good to try to find the Trinity in the Old Testament because “To admit belief in the Trinity without belief in Christ would be to confuse irretrievable the logic and purpose of revelation” (141, Doctrine of God). Agree or Disagree?

This was after he described the possibility of Genesis 18 as possible Trinity appearance.

I also found interesting his commentary on the number three being seen as perfection in Greek culture as pointed out by Philo of Alexanderia in his commentary on Genesis 18. And seen again in Clement as allegorical proof of the Trinity but it was abandoned by Calvin during the Reformation as too fanciful.

Labels: ,

Sunday, April 20, 2008

Today's Sermon

Today, my pastor made a comment during the sermon that I swear was being directed at the lynching of Presbyman by certain commenters at Ben's blog. He said, that perception is all that matters in some Conservative circles rather than Truth. If you mispeak one little bit, it doesn't matter what your intent was, the mob dives in and attacks. He connected it to the Pharisees' intent in asking Jesus which is the greatest commandment. And also to the current political atmosphere.

As I left church today, I told him about the Presbyman affair and the whole Anti-Christ and Pope and Westminster discussion. And he just shook his head and agreed with me. I'm glad I'm not the only one besides Presbyman that thinks its getting ridiculous.

But I wonder what it was that he was referring to. He's doing a D-Min and I wonder if it had anything to do with his experience with that.

Labels: ,

Thursday, March 13, 2008

Qualifications or Fairness

Is it fair that a blind person cannot conduct a medical operation? Is it fair when a high school dropout is not hired for a position that requires a higher degree? Is it fair when a deaf person is not hired to take dictation?

Its not a question of fairness. Its a question of qualifications.

Someone must be able to see to conduct a medical operation
Someone must have the degree for certain jobs
Someone must be able to hear to take down someone's words accurately

So why when the qualifications for Biblical ministry are clearly spelled out in Timothy does it suddenly become a question of fairness?

I Timothy 3:1-13

Qualifications for Overseers

1The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2Therefore an overseer£ must be above reproach, the husband of one wife,£ sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? 6He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.

Qualifications for Deacons

8Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued,£ not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. 9They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 10And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. 11Their wives£ likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. 12Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. 13For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.

Titus 1:6-9

Qualifications for Elders

5This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you—6if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife,£ and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. 7For an overseer,£ as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, 8but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. 9He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound£ doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, January 17, 2008

SF Presbytery may as well burn the BIbles

    Yet while Holy Scripture is necessary to faith and authoritative in our
    lives, “to lead a life in obedience to Scripture sets the authority of Scripture above the authority of Christ and returns us to life under the law.
No it doesn't. The Word is from Christ. It is not above his authority. It is his authority.

And we never were out from under the law. We are to live according to the Law as best we can. We fail. But through the merciful gift of God, believers are forgiven for their sins. Not one letter from the law has been removed by Christ and it is the Law which believers are to follow as their conscience. And they are to be repentant when they fail to follow the law.

What does it mean to be repentant? It means you recognize that you were in the wrong. You do not try to justify your actions. You do not try to make it ok. You condemn your action and you attempt to stop your sinful nature. You do not relish it. You do not center your life around it. You do not continue to live in sin on purpose. You try to change your behavior to follow the Law of God which is the Law of Christ.

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, January 8, 2008

Order of Worship = Structure for Evangelism?

The typical order of Worship on Sunday:

I. Entering the Presence of God
    A. Call to Worship
    B. Songs of Praise
    C. Prayer of Confession
    D. Assurance of Pardon
    E. Psalter Response
    F. Hymn of Praise
II. Hearing God's Word to us
    A. Old Testament Lesson
    B. Epistles Lesson
    C. Gospel Lesson
    D. Sermon
III. The People's Response
    A. Hymn of Response
    B. Confession of Faith
    C. Prayers of the People
    D. Offerings
    E. Closing Hymn
Doesn't evangelism use the same structure?
I. Call and Convict the person of their sins
II. Teach them the Grace of God and the Gift of Salvation
III. Hopefully their response to the Gospel of Grace positive and they are welcomed into the people of God.

Labels: , ,

Thursday, January 3, 2008

The Regulative Principle

The Regulative Prince is
    whatever is not commanded is forbidden
Now I would say it should be "whatever is commanded is necessary and what is not commanded is forbidden" but thats not what this post is about. What it is about is John Frame has a different view on its implications.
    Is buying cabbage really adiaphoron, morally indifferent? I would say no. Buying cabbage, like all human actions, is a matter of concern to God. He says, "Whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God" (1 Cor 10:31). This command, like those in Rom 14:23, Col 3:17, 24, and elsewhere, is absolutely general. It covers all human activities, including buying cabbage. If we buy cabbage to the glory of God, he is pleased; if we do not, he is not. The act is not morally indifferent or neutral; it is either good or bad, depending on its goal and motive. Therefore, in an important sense, there are no adiaphora; there is no human act that is morally neutral.7 Every human act is either right or wrong, either pleasing or displeasing to God.

    This means that all human actions are ruled by divine commandments. There is no neutral area where God permits us to be our own lawgivers. There is no area of human life where God abdicates his rule, or where his word to us is silent. What law governs the buying of cabbage? Well, 1 Cor 10:31 at least, not to mention narrower biblical principles requiring parents to nourish their children, to guard the health of themselves and others, etc. Actions in accord with these biblical principles are right, actions not in accord with them are wrong. It is not a matter of merely avoiding explicit prohibitions; rather it is a matter of keeping the commands of God.

    And thus I would conclude that all human life is under RP1, and RP2 plays no role in biblical ethics.8 In every action, we are either obeying or disobeying a biblical command.
Now the RP2 is the Lutheran model:

    "whatever is not forbidden is permitted
So if all of life is to be governed by the Regulative Principle, one would have to figure out several defenses. For instance:

Using computers
Using automobiles
Spending time on the internet
Plowing fields with machinery
Using machinery for that matter
Watching Television
Campaigning for an office
Spending a single second in some mindless entertainment like a movie or video games

Now Frame may actually take away this requirement because he goes on to say:
    Does this mean that God commands me to buy a particular cabbage at the store? No. God commands me to glorify him, etc., and buying the cabbage is a "mode," a "way" of fulfilling that commandment. I could, perhaps, have fulfilled it in many other ways. Strict as it is, RP1 allows, both in worship (as we have seen) and in the rest of life, some freedom of application. Here again, there is no real difference between worship and the rest of life. In both cases, the three qualifications listed earlier must be taken into account: (a) we determine our responsibilities not only on the basis of explicit proof texts, but also on the basis of "good and necessary consequence"; (b) there are some "circumstances" not specifically mentioned in Scripture which we seek to arrange wisely, in accord with the broader principles of the word; and (c) Scripture grants us much (though not unlimited) freedom in the ways we carry out divine commands.
With that, I would say the requirement of defenses falls to only:
Watching TV
Spending Time on the INternet
And Spending time with other entertainments
Plus whatever things I didn't think of in the few seconds I spent thinking up stuff that match the new criteria

For instance can playing a video game like for instance Halo glorify God? I suppose one could evangelize while playing it. But doing that while shooting other players seems a bit of a stretch. But I suppose Evangelism could be used for doing any of those things.

Of course there is the question of where is the line between following rules and legalism? And what about Christian Liberty as defined in 1 Corinthians?

Labels: , ,

Thursday, December 20, 2007

Four Old Testament Women

The first woman I want to talk about is Tamar, a Canaanite. She was married to the son of Judah who died. By Israelite custom, Judah's next son should marry her so that she can produce a son. He wouldn't go through with the custom and was killed by God for it. So it fell to Judah's youngest son who was but a boy. Judah claimed he was to young and that he would marry her when he gets older. As the years passed, it became clear to Tamar that she was going to stood up at the altar so she pretended to be a temple prostitute(she hid behind a veil) and slept with Judah after securing notable items as collateral. Her one night stand with Judah caused her to become pregnant. Judah was not happy since she was supposed to be his family and now she went outside the family and got pregnant. He demanded to know who and she produced his items which embarrassed Judah greatly. (Genesis 38)

The second is Rahab. She was the prostitute that the spies of Joshua ran into when they were spying on Jericho. She hid them when the city guards began searching for them. In exchange for her help, she and her family and possessions were spared when the city fell. She was welcomed into the Israelite society. (Joshua 2,5:13-ff)

The third is Ruth. Ruth was a Moabite woman who married the son of a Judien: Elimelech. Now as an aside Elimelech means in Hebrew My God is King. Now Elimelech died leaving a widow in Naomi but she had two sons:Mahlon & Kilion who could take care of her. One of these sons was the husband of Ruth and the other son married another Moabite woman named Orpah. After ten years, both sons died leaving Naomi with her two daughter in laws. She told them both to go back to their families and that she was going back to Judah. Orpah did as she suggested but Ruth refused. She would not allow her mother in law to be all alone and she went back to Judah with her. Where she was soon married to a kinsman of Naomi named Boaz. (The Book of Ruth)

The forth woman is Bathsheba. Bathsheba was a beautiful woman and wife of the loyal soldier Urriah, a Hittite. Now Urriah was away fighting for King David under the command of Joab but David was in Jerusalem and was looking out from his window and he saw Bathsheba and his lusts came to the forefront and he sent word to her to come to room. Which she did and he slept with her and then sent her away. She sent word that she was pregnant and this caused a panic in the throneroom of David. He sent word to Joab to send Urriah back to Jerusalem. When he arrived, David asked him about the battles and after the pleasantries were over he suggested Urriah go home and be with his wife. Urriah did not because he was refraining himself during this holy war. So David tried to get him drunk so that he would sleep with Bathsheba but he still remained away from his wife. So David sent him back with sealed orders. He was to be "accidentally" killed in battle and so Urriah was killed. Now it was later found out because Nathan the Prophet confronted David about this.

So why are these four Old Testament women important and why are they singled out and named? Because if you turn to Matthew 1, you will see that all four women are in the genealogy of Christ. Two Canaanites, a Moabite, and a possible Hittite. And the first three were in the genealogy of David.

Labels:

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Why you should learn Hebrew...

I'm looking at a passage across Bible translations: Hosea 11:5

NIV: Will they not return to Egypt and will not Assyria rule over them because they refuse to repent?

ESV: They shall not return to the land of Egypt, but Assyria shall be their king, because they have refused to return to me.

TNIV: “Will they not return to Egypt and will not Assyria rule over them because they refuse to repent?

NRSV: They shall return to the land of Egypt, and Assyria shall be their king, because they have refused to return to me.

RSV: They shall return to the land of Egypt, and Assyria shall be their king, because they have refused to return to me.

ASV: They shall not return into the land of Egypt; but the Assyrian shall be their king, because they refused to return to me.

Now, when you look at the Hebrew, it begins with a Lo which is the Hebrew word for no or not. So the NRSV and the RSV are thrown out right there.

And the first verb is Yashoov which is a third masculine singular verb for return or turn. That's he or it. Not they. That just throws out all the remaining translations. The verse actually appears to translate to me as

He/It will not return to the land of Egypt but Assyria will rule him/it because he/it turned from me.

But I sit here scratching my head on where all these translations are getting a third common plural translation. And wondering if I'm mistaken...

Labels: ,

Tuesday, December 4, 2007

Every Biblical Studies-Theology student should join

...the Society of Biblical Literature. It costs students $25 and you get access to the nearly every journal published since Volume 1 on JSTOR. There's a few here and there where it says not available but so far those are ones published before 1900 and they are few in number. And its only $25 for students.

Labels: , ,

Reformed Theological Seminary offers Free Lectures

Is everyone aware of this?

RTS offers http://virtual.rts.edu/ a lot of course lectures via itunes for free. A more direct link is http://itunes.rts.edu/

They have three Old Testament courses:

Genesis to Joshua 29 lectures
Judges thru Poets 36 lectures
Isaiah thru Malachi 34 lectures

Three New Testament Courses
Gospels and Acts 48 lectures
Pauline Epistles 47 lectures
Hebrew thru Revelation 45 lectures

5 courses in Church History
Church History 1 32 lectures
Church History 2 30 lectures
Church and the World 27 lectures
History and Theology of the Puritans 16 lectures
History of Missions 35 lectures

2 Courses in Prac Theology
Disabilities in the church 29 lectures
Education Ministry in the church 24 lectures

9 Courses in Theology
Intro to Pastoral and Theology 22 lectures
History of Philosophy and Christianity 36 lectures
Theological Foundations 24 lectures
Systematic Theology 1 (38 lectures) 2 (20 lectures) 3 (38 lectures)
Pastoral and Social Ethics 43 lectures
Christian Apologetics 26 lectures
CS Lewis 26 lectures

Plus different small sets on different things like 3 lectures on New Perspectives on Paul

And that's not to do away with the great deal of courses offered by Covenant Theological Seminary. They offer 20 courses as well at http://www.covenantseminary.edu/worldwide/default.asp

Including

Ancient & Medieval Church History
Apologetics & Outreach
Biblical Theology
Calvin's Institutes
Christ-Centered Preaching: Preparation and Delivery of Sermons
Christian Ethics
Christian Worship
Francis A. Schaeffer: The Early Years
Francis A. Schaeffer: The Later Years
God & His Word
God's World Mission
Hebrews to Revelation
Humanity, Christ & Redemption
Life & Letters of Paul
Life & Teachings of Jesus
New Testament History and Theology
Old Testament History
Psalms & Wisdom Books
Reformation & Modern Church History
Spirit, Church, & Last Things
Youth Ministry

Labels: , , ,

Sunday, December 2, 2007

My Class at church

Hey did I say 6 weeks? I actually meant 9 weeks. Yeah. We're right on schedule. I have no idea what you're talking about. This is a nine week course and always has been.

We're now at Slide 111 of 298. We talked about the 12th Dynasty of Egypt today and also threw in the minor Dynasties 13 and 14 which were concurrent dynasties. Not a good thing when two dynasties claim to be the rulers of Egypt at the same time.

Next week we continue the history of Genesis starting with Abraham at Sodom and Gomorrah. The schedule will be to go up to Joseph then return to the 15th Dynasty of Egypt and move through to the Merneptah Stele. Then we'll go back to Moses and face off against the Pharaoh of the Exodus. Otherwise known as Amenhotep II.

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

So is it a bad thing...

...that the first class that I teach, I'm already behind on the schedule that I planned? My class is supposed to last 6 weeks. And that means this week we're supposed to be at the midway point after this Sunday. We're no where near it. I made a powerpoint presentation for my class and its currently at 248 slides. And it keeps growing because I keep adding things/editing/breaking slides up into two and I already am going to add about 5 to 10 slides to the beginning of this Sunday's presentation. We're currently at slide number 64 which means we would need to do 60 slides this week to get to the halfway point. Last Sunday I only got through 20 slides. The first week I did 44 as the match probably showed.

I look at the material and it seems possible to get to slide 96... Of course I would probably cause their heads to start spinning.

And I keep getting the feeling that my pastor wants me to cover the documentary hypothesis because both weeks he's brought up the names of God and the way liberals do scholarship, and he said Gary can tell you more about that... which I gave a fairly limited overview of the different names of God: El Shaddai, Elohim, the different El titles, and of course Yahweh. Although it became a topic because one of my reasons I listed for studying Ancient Egypt was Liberal scholarship's tendency to not put much emphasis on Egypt... so I'm debating whether or not to add it to my class at some point. Maybe near the end.

Labels: , ,

Sunday, November 25, 2007

The Error of the Anti-Federal Vision group

The other day, I posted where I feel the Federal Vision proponents are in error. Now I'm going to post where their opponents are wrong. Look at what is going on in this debate. The entire Presbytery of Louisiana (PCA) is now on trial because they did not find a minister guilty. When this entire argument is done, the proponents of Federal Vision are going to have to leave the denomination. Some might say this is good. Those that do are the people that are not doing this for the glory of God. They are doing it for the glory of being the one that sent others packing. They are doing it for their own names rather than God.

Why is that?

Because they are not following the Lord's directions when dealing with controversy. You do not start proclaiming the wrongness of someone's beliefs to anyone that will listen.

Matthew 18:15-following shows exactly what you are supposed to do.

Face them alone and tell them why you feel they are wrong. Then they can explain their view. If you still feel they are wrong, then go back with several others and tell them again and then they can explain themselves to the group. Now if they still feel they are right, and your group is unswayed by their arguments, then you go to the church.

But instead, this has become drive the "heretics" away. And abusive language is used against them by the majority of their opponents. Now over at Greenbaggins that used to not be the case. It was civil and debate was a useful dialogue. But that was before Lane was chosen to be one of the prosecutors in this trial of Louisianna presbytery. Now its become a find mud on someone and proclaim it regardless of its source. And biased source is an understatement.

These type of issues are supposed to be done humbly. Do you see much humbleness?

I believe the theology of Federal Vision to be in error but the actions of the opponents are also very much in error.

Labels: , ,

Thursday, November 22, 2007

The Error of Federal Vision

I looked at this when it was first released but never commented unless my memory is wrong. But I just read the Federal Vision joint statement again. I find things I can agree with other times wondering if their words aren't meant to hide thier true thoughts. But then I got to the section of Assurance for Salvation and read this quote:

    We affirm also that though salvation is granted through the
    instrument of faith alone, those who have been justified will live progressively more and more sanctified lives until they go to be with God. Those believers for whom this is true look to Christ for their assurance—in the Word, in the sacraments, in their fellow believers, and in their own participation in that life by faith
Sounds good. Except...

Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Everyone sins every day by the Sermon on the Mount. Not doing something is not enough. We have to not want to do something and then when we do it confess our guilt in prayer and ask for forgiveness. Have you looked at a beautiful person of the opposite sex and not been attracted? Not thought s/he looked hot? Wished s/he would notice you? Have you not seen and wanted the newest fad? Wanted something because "everyone" else has it? Have you ever taken advantage of driving over the speed limit because you know you can get away with it? Thought about it? Then you are guilty. Not following the just laws of men is also sin. So all sin and all fall short of the glory of God.

The difference is in your reaction to your sin. If you think your sins are nothing, then you really are not part of the elect. If you however, feel guilty and try not to repeat them then God is merciful to those that believe in him.

This is why continuing to live in sin and justifying it eliminates a person from ministry. They do not look for Christ to free them from sin but continue to live and relish it. One cannot live contrary to scripture and continue to do so unrepentantly and preach.

I think wanting to live a certain way is an important distiction from not caring. Those that live in sin and don't care but proclaim they believe are not of the elect. Those that want to live a certain way but fail but believe are part of the elect.

Romans 3:23 says that all fall short and I believe that it is impossible to live up to the demands of the Sermon of the Mount. But that doesn't mean some haven't tried. Those that try and believe are the elect.

If anyone of the Federal Vision advocates believe they have lived up to the Sermon of the Mount, I hope they will eventually explain how they do so in their literature. Until then, I think they have confused the modern world, with the world to come after the second coming.

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Pharaoh of the Exodus

Most scholars believe that the Pharaoh of the Exodus was Ramses the Great aka Ramses II. Ramses had a reign of nearly 70 years. He had 52 sons and nearly as many daughters. It paid to be a Pharaoh with a harem.

There is a major problem with identiying him as the Pharaoh of the Exodus. The Pharaoh with at least a 40 year reign was not the Pharaoh of the Exodus. He was the Pharaoh before the Pharaoh of the Exodus. Because the 40 year reigning Pharaoh died while Moses was in Midian.

Now Ramses II's successor, Merneptah, left a stelae proclaiming how he went into Canaan and destroyed all kind of cities and one other thing. He destroyed the people Israel and cut off their seed completely. This indicates that the Hebrews had already left before Merneptah became Pharaoh.

So Ramses could not be the Pharaoh of the Exodus. Seti I only had a 13 year reign. Now you can say 40 just means a long time BUT I don't think it can mean 13 years. That is way to short.

There is only one other Pharaoh with a reign of at least 40 years that is in the same period as the Exodus. That is Thutmose III. He ruled from 1479-1425. Except for one little detail, his stepmother and aunt, Hatshepsut, seized power in 1479 and ruled until the 1450s. She was the daughter of Thutmose I and was forced by Thutmose II to marry him to legitimize his rule when she was 13 years old in 1493. Now wouldn't Hatshepsut who defied all traditions of Egypt and ruled as a woman on her own not be a good candidate to be the Pharaoh's daughter of Exodus 2?

If this is correct, this shows that there are actually 4 Pharaohs during the period described in the book of Exodus. Thutmose I is the one that issued the decree that all male babies be killed. Thutmose II didn't do much concerning the Hebrews, Thutmose III chased Moses into Midia. And the Pharaoh of the Exodus was Amenhotep II who ruled from 1425 to 1400.

So why don't the scholars accept this? Because archaeologists have decided that the dates of destructive layers in Canaan do not match this date.

Now it amazes me that a bunch of scholars that never read the Bible literally will take this as their argument against a scenario that fits the description of Exodus perfectly. So the Bible is not to be read as historically reliable except when it matches what they think it should be.

It is beside the point that I think the dating of the archaeologists is wrong.

I think the only reason these scholars refuse to accept Thutmose III as the 40 year reigning Pharaoh is because the conservative evangelicals do. They cannot possibly agree with the evangelicals so they come up with a Pharaoh that does not match the Biblical account but will match archaeology after they play with the dating data of the excavations. After all in the past, the same archaeology data put the destruction layers during the appropriate time.

Labels: ,

Sunday, November 18, 2007

Sunday Adult School

Today I taught the first of several classes on Ancient Egypt and the Old Testament upto the the Exodus before church service today. I started the class with the general introduction given in most Ancient Egyptian classes. I started with how we know about Ancient Egypt which is the Hieroglyphs. And also how the Hieroglyphs came to be deciphered.

Which involves Napoleon, War with the Mameluks and finally A British invasion and them taking the Rosetta stone off the French.

The only bad thing is my hour long lecture came in at 45 minutes. Oops.

While this week was heavy on the Ancient Egypt side of things, next week is heavy on the Abraham story.

Labels: ,

Saturday, November 10, 2007

Queen Jezebel's seal found

Discovered originally in 1964, doubts were cast on its true owner. But...

    A new investigation by the Utrecht Old Testament scholar Marjo Korpel demonstrates that the seal must have belonged to the infamous Queen Jezebel. Korpel reached this conclusion after more careful investigation of the symbols that appear on the seal.

Labels: , , ,

Friday, November 9, 2007

Society of Biblical Literature

I have finally become a member of the Society of Biblical Literature earlier tonight. I probably should have become a member before this.

Labels: ,

Friday, October 19, 2007

NCC Upset about SCHIP Veto

Link

    “In the Gospel of Matthew 18:6 Jesus said: ‘If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were fastened around your neck and you were drowned in the depth of the sea.’”


Funny that scripture doesn't really seem to me to be talking about government entitlement programs. It seems based on the context to be talking about sin. And causing the little ones to sin

Matthew 18:7-8

Mt 18:7 “Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come! 8 If your hand or your foot causes you to sin cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.

Seems almost to be like causing little ones to believe that John 14:6

John 14:6-7

Jn 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really knew me, you would know2 my Father as well.

doesn't indicate that Jesus is the ONLY way to heaven and all other religions are false.

Or that Acts 15:20, 29, 21:25, Romans 13:13, 1 Corinthians 5:1-11, 6:13-18, 10:8, 2 Corinthians 12:21, Galatians 5:19, Ephesians 5:3, Colossians 3:5, 1 Thessolonians 4:3, and Jude 1:7 do not condemn homosexuality as sin.

But an excellent passage to be quoted by the NCC. Maybe it will open their eyes. I doubt it.

Labels: ,

Tuesday, October 9, 2007

Bible Change

I've long preferred the NIV Study Bible and have been using it since my freshman year at Geneva in 1996. But my church switched from the NIV to the ESV a couple of years ago. And after speaking with one of the professors at PTS who likes the NRSV over the NIV and gave reasons why, I have decided to take a closer look at the ESV. Now the ESV and NRSV started with the same text: The 1971 RSV. One went the way that drives me nuts with political correctness and the other took the other route. The route of worldly condemnation of being noninclusive. Or in other words standing up for what you believe.

So I bought the ESV Literary Study Bible a few minutes ago.
Of course since I went with the el cheapo shipping, I'll probably get it sometime in December.

Labels:

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

1 Timothy 2:11-14

Link to pathetic exegesis

Since my goal is to eventually be a professor, let it be known the first student to turn in a paper that proclaims that a section of the Bible was not actually written by the author of the book being read will receive an F for the course. It is by far the most ridiculous thing to fall back on "it isn't really part of the Word" because you don't like what a passage says.

A far better argument is the one that says it was written in a time when women were uneducated and not capable of intelligent discourse and that since that is no longer the case...

But to go to the argument of that's not really part of scripture is pathetic. Just like these so called churches that proclaim John 14:6 to not really be genuine with not one shread of evidence except they don't like it. All to be politically correct. Go ahead and be part of the world. Just stay out of my future courses because you won't pass.

Labels: , ,

Saturday, July 21, 2007

A nice resource

Link

I have used Quickverse for years for parallel Translation viewing. I just discovered(or I should say I finally tried it online) that Zondervan offers parallel translations on its website at the link. They have less versions then Quickverse but you can't beat the price they charge: 0.

Labels:

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

Vacation Bible School

This week I am helping with my church's Vacation Bible School. Its pretty tough waking up at 7:30 when I've been getting up at 9:00 for quite some time now. I guess this is a good wakeup call since I'm going to be getting up even earlier this fall.

And I go walk 2 miles with my cousin every day at 1. And these past two days I have been really dragging and slowing us down as I want that extra sleep. heh.

Labels: ,

Saturday, July 14, 2007

One reason why the Catholic Church is not the TRUE Church either

As long as Pope Benedict wants to determine who is and who is not the true church, I think it opens up the door to expressing what is wrong with the Catholic Church. First, I want to say that I welcome this stance that he has publically taken. I am tired of the all is good philosophy that has been prevalient lately. I think a denomination has to believe that it is correct otherwise why does the denomination exist? That doesn't mean that there aren't saved Christians in all denomination. But one should believe that their denomination is the one truest to the Bible and the others are defective in some way.

One of the things that I feel is wrong about the Catholic Church is the order of nuns. They claim to get this from the 1 Timothy 5:9 and 1 Corinthians 7.

    1 Timothy 5:9 No widow may be put on the list of widows unless she is over sixty, has been faithful to her husband,£ 10and is well known for her good deeds, such as bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the saints, helping those in trouble and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds.
Note how it specifically mentions widows? That indicates that these women were married before. And they had children and were known for being good mothers. They were not eighteen year olds being taken from their families. These are women who were married before. But you get even more context when you include 1 Timothy 5:3-8

    1 Timothy 5:3 Give proper recognition to those widows who are really in need. 4But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God. 5The widow who is really in need and left all alone puts her hope in God and continues night and day to pray and to ask God for help. 6But the widow who lives for pleasure is dead even while she lives. 7Give the people these instructions, too, so that no one may be open to blame. 8If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
This indicates that this list is supposed to be a welfare system for old women who have no one to take care of them.

So why does the church go after young girls? Lets continue with 1 Timothy:

    1 Timothy 5: 11As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry. 12Thus they bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge. 13Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying things they ought not to. 14So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander. 15Some have in fact already turned away to follow Satan.
So essentially the Church is not supposed to go after the young women at all.

And to add another nail let's look at 1 Timothy 5:16

    16If any woman who is a believer has widows in her family, she should help them and not let the church be burdened with them, so that the church can help those widows who are really in need.
Not only are they not supposed to go after the younger women but if someone can take care of the older women then they should so the church is not burdened. This certainly does not sound like support for the Nuns as a group of virgins.

And this is the chapter that the Catholic Church itself looks to support the order of nuns.

The other book they often quote is 1 Corinthians chapter 7:32-35

    1 Corinthians 7:32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife—34and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.
But earlier in the chapter it says this in verse 25:

    1 Corinthians 7:25Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy.
So the order of nuns of young women was not God ordained. It was Paul's opinion people would be happier single. And they could devote themselves to the Lord more easily then married people.

Does this sound like he meant there to be an order? With rituals and what not. I don't think so.

I think the order of nuns of young virgins sounds a lot more like the pagan Vestal Virgins

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

1 Kings 12:25-13:1-3 - Food for Thought

There are two competing theologies fighting for Christianity.
One is God-centered
The other is human-centered

    I Kings 12
    25Then Jeroboam fortified Shechem in the hill country of Ephraim and lived there. From there he went out and built up Peniel.£
    26Jeroboam thought to himself, “The kingdom will now likely revert to the house of David. 27If these people go up to offer sacrifices at the temple of the LORD in Jerusalem, they will again give their allegiance to their lord, Rehoboam king of Judah. They will kill me and return to King Rehoboam.”
    28After seeking advice, the king made two golden calves. He said to the people, “It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem. Here are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.” 29One he set up in Bethel, and the other in Dan. 30And this thing became a sin; the people went even as far as Dan to worship the one there.
    31Jeroboam built shrines on high places and appointed priests from all sorts of people, even though they were not Levites. 32He instituted a festival on the fifteenth day of the eighth month, like the festival held in Judah, and offered sacrifices on the altar. This he did in Bethel, sacrificing to the calves he had made. And at Bethel he also installed priests at the high places he had made. 33On the fifteenth day of the eighth month, a month of his own choosing, he offered sacrifices on the altar he had built at Bethel. So he instituted the festival for the Israelites and went up to the altar to make offerings.

That shows us Jeroboam forsaking the revelation that was given to Moses and following the example of Aaron when Moses was in consultation with God. He builds altars and establishes festivals that were not centered on God. Instead they were concerned with keeping the people out of the southern kingdom and thus outside the influence of the southern religion.


    1 Kings 13
    1By the word of the LORD a man of God came from Judah to Bethel, as Jeroboam was standing by the altar to make an offering. 2He cried out against the altar by the word of the LORD: “O altar, altar! This is what the LORD says: ‘A son named Josiah will be born to the house of David. On you he will sacrifice the priests of the high places who now make offerings here, and human bones will be burned on you.’” 3That same day the man of God gave a sign: “This is the sign the LORD has declared: The altar will be split apart and the ashes on it will be poured out.”

That shows what God's reaction to worship that is not God-centered.

Labels: ,

Saturday, June 30, 2007

A defense of Hymns and Musical Instruments in Worship

Have you ever come across the denominations that refuse to allow musical instruments in their service? I was a member of one that not only didn’t allow musical instruments but also only allowed the singing of the Psalms. I was a member of the Reformed Presbyterians for roughly a decade.

These acapella churches and Psalm-only churches follow the regulative principle of worship. Which says anything not expressly commanded/or shown as an example in scripture is forbidden in worship.

But I would dispute that it is not expressly commanded to sing additional songs to the Psalms. Specifically Esphesians 5:19, Romans 5:9, Acts 16:25, and Collossians 3:16. All of them either order/show the singing of hymns or differientiate between hymns and Psalms. And also some order the singing of hymns, psalms and spiritual songs. Showing that the Psalm-only churches are in error.

Now the no instrument churches argue that there is no command nor example in the New Testament ordering the use of instruments. And I admit I fail to see any. But the New Testament is not the only part of scripture. There is also the Old Testament which I see plenty of examples for use of musical instruments.

David played a harp for Saul that kept the evil spirits away from Saul and made him feel good in 1 Samuel 16. 1 Chronicles 25 sees the sons of Jeduthun using a harp to praise and thank the Lord. Now they will try to claim that only deals with the temple worship and that you can’t use the instruments because there is no temple. Although I fail to see how David’s use of the harp is exclusive t othe temple in Chronicles.

But then we turn to the Psalms. The very songs that are often sung acapella. Psalm 33:2- 3 - Praise the LORD with the harp;
make music to him on the ten-stringed lyre.
3 Sing to him a new song;
play skillfully, and shout for joy.

Isn’t a bit strange to sing about praising the Lord with a harp and playing skillfully and then turning around and saying you aren’t allowed to praise the Lord with a harp during worship?

Or Psalm 49:4, 57:8, 71:22, 81:2, 92:3, 98:5, 108:1-2, 147:7, 149:3, 150:3.

And those are just searches using the word Harp in Quickverse. There was one other Psalm 43 but the context involves the temple so I omit it from the list.

Look at the context of 98 with verse 4 Shout for joy to the LORD, all the earth,
burst into jubilant song with music;

I think there is plenty of Biblical evidence for using the musical instruments during service. If all of these Psalms are wrong, then why are they being sung? If they have been determined to be no longer valid, then its rather erronious to continue to sing them.

Can you tell I wasn't always the most popular attendant at the old church? I never was one to hold back how I really felt about things(like you needed me to point that out).

Just one of the reasons when asked what was the difference between the PCA and the RP church, a PCA member said "The PCA is more reformed then the RP church." :D

Labels: ,

Monday, May 28, 2007

Creation Museum

Link
Today the Creation Museum opens in Cincinnati. It costs $27 million dollars and has plenty of Protests going on. I saw one article earlier then this one and in my local paper quote a protester proclaiming that they are teaching children fairy tales and hurting their education and that's why they're protesting.

Now I can understand protesting government actions and corporate actions. But to protest a museum that the children are taken to by their parents and its not required, I don't see how its "hurting" their education. Or threatening science. Its a private museum and they can put their information and items out there any way they want.

But Genesis 1 is an interesting chapter of the Bible. I have a Biblical Studies degree and am attending Seminary this fall. There are many different ways that scholars look at the chapter. Some take the literal 24 hr day approach. Others believe the days are vast ages. Then there's one called a gap theory where there are days but's time between the days of creation. Finally there's a literary Framework approach.

Now the others are mentioned in the article that I link to at the top so I'll describe the one that's not mentioned. The literary framework looks at the days of creation and notices that Day one and Day four go together, Day Two and Day Five go together, and Day Three and Day Six go together. It claims that the days are literary devices to explain the creation. Or in other words, the first chapter is in topical order instead of chronological order.

And an interesting thing about the original Hebrew of the Bible. The word yom that is translated as Day in most modern translations can mean the following:

from crosswalk.com lexicon on the Old Testament
day, time, year
day (as opposed to night)
day (24 hour period)
as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1
as a division of time 1b
a working day, a day's journey
days, lifetime (pl.)
time, period (general)
year
temporal references
today
yesterday
tomorrow

And in the New American Standard, it was translated like so throughout the Old Testament:
afternoon* 1, age 8, age* 1, all 1, always* 14, amount* 2, battle 1, birthday* 1, Chronicles* 38, completely* 1, continually* 14, course* 1, daily 22, daily the days 1, day 1115, day of the days 1, day that the period 1, day's 6, day's every day 1, daylight* 1, days 635, days on the day 1, days to day 1, days you shall daily 1, days ago 1, days' 11, each 1, each day 4, entire 2, eternity 1, evening* 1, ever in your life* 1, every day 2, fate 1, first 5, forever* 11, forevermore* 1, full 5, full year 1, future* 1, holiday* 3, later* 2, length 1, life 12, life* 1, lifetime 2, lifetime* 1, live 1, long 2, long as i live 1, long* 11, midday* 1, now 5, older* 1, once 2, period 3, perpetually* 2, present 1, recently 1, reigns 1, ripe* 1, short-lived* 1, so long* 1, some time 1, survived* 2, time 45, time* 1, times* 2, today 172, today* 1, usual 1, very old* 1, when 10, when the days 1, whenever 1, while 3, whole 2, year 10, yearly 5, years 13, yesterday* 1

The number after the word indicates how many times it was translated that way.

So you might ask, well how on earth do you know what word to use when your translating the passage. You have to use the context of the rest of the sentence. Its obvious that the passage is dealing with time so all the possible words that don't deal with time, can be removed like holiday, whole, while, ect...

The use of the Hebrew words ereb translates into evening. Which makes the context seem to indicate day for Yom. However, ereb can also mean the following according to the Lexicon:

evening, night, sunset
evening, sunset
night

And in the NAS its translated into the following:

evening 114, evening* 1, evenings 2, every evening 1, night 2, sunset 1, twilight 11

And the use of the Hebrew word boger or boqer depending on how you want to pronounce it translates into morning. However the word can mean the following according to the Lexicon:


morning, break of day
morning
of end of night
of coming of daylight
of coming of sunrise
of beginning of day
of bright joy after night of distress (fig.)
morrow, next day, next morning

And the NAS translates it accordingly:
dawn 1, dawn* 2, day 1, daybreak 1, every morning 5, morning 195, mornings 2, soon 1, tomorrow morning 1

In addition to those meanings I've seen at least one Lexicon that gives the meaning high tide and low tide to these two words.

But this all seems to indicate that we are in deed talking about the typical day. But like English with words can be combined and used outside their meaning. Like "Get Out of Here" it can mean get out of here. It can also mean that's so off the wall I don't believe you. Could the phrase that we're translating "And there was evening and morning the first day" mean simply that time passed? Hence the Day Age Theory...

In addition for the young earth creationists who take it literally, how long did Adam and Eve live in the Garden of Eden without sin? The Bible does not indicate. It could have been any number of years so to hold onto the earth is only 6000 years old is not Biblical. The Bible does not say how old the earth is because its not important.

Labels: , , ,