Wordle of Oprah Finale

Please stop visiting my blog...

...I feel guilty that you keep showing up, and yet I have nothing to show you.

Okay, so I might be so stressed out at college that I've stopped generating any content here. I might be so stressed out that I had to palm off a sermon at late notice, have (according to wifey) been grinding my teeth and straining my vocals in my sleep (read=painful moaning), plus funny things are happening to my hair.

But forget all that, why haven't you subscribed to Visual Unit yet? I might be boring, but let me tell you, a genealogy that is represented by beard sizes is never dull.

What would also be cool is one that is represented by coffins (and he died, and he died, and he died..), except of course for Enoch.

Anyways, stop wasting your time here and go marvel at Mark's magnificent infographics. He's what you never knew you always wanted.

What are you waiting for?

John Commentaries

Syllabus said Carson.

So I bought Carson.

What could be better than the Don? First lecture, lecturer announced Kostenberger is a protege of Carson and is better. He's got everything Carson has, but better on narrative.

So I bought Kostenberger.

Lecturer then half-mumbled three lectures later that their secret non-technical commentary which gets to the emotional and theological heart of John was by Lesslie Newbigin.

I'd never heard of him(?), and had already purchased two commentaries, so I borrowed it from the library.

After reading the four pages related to my essay I'd already be willing to trade Carson and Kostenberger for Newbigin. Okay, maybe not. It's an unfair comparison, they're doing different things. But I'll be chasing up Newbigin very soon. Brilliant, simple, heartfelt, engaging, and penetrating analysis.

I am getting plenty from all three, but Newbigin helped me feel the core of my essay question. Take away the Greek analysis and Kostenberger and Carson might do the same, but there's just something about Newbigin. Who is this man? I have no idea.

Perhaps its also a case of a rose by any other name not smelling as sweet? Carson goes for The Gospel According to John. Kostenberger quite simply is titled John. Newbigin - The Light has Come.

Now back to my essay...

The most awkward translation in the ESV?

I am generally a big fan of the ESV. I understand why people push the Holman and the NIV in some contexts, but the ESV has been my Bible of choice since my uni days.

Though sometimes it's just plain awkward.

John 18:25

Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. So they said to him, "You also are not one of his disciples, are you?" He denied it and said, "I am not."

So.... are they asking him if he is, or if he isn't one of Jesus' disciples. And when he says "I am not", is he saying that he is not not one of the disciples, in which case he is a disciple. Or is he denying that he's not a disciple?

Thankfully some of the other translation options initially put forward for the question, were discarded:

• Also you, one of his disciples not, are you?
• You also are one of his disciples, are you not?
• Not also, are you, one of his disciples, are you?
• One of his disciples, you also, you are?
• Disciples, one of also, are you, you are?
• Aren't you also one of his disciples?

Accordance

And I thought the egalitarian/complementarian divide was great at college*. I'm sitting in an Accordance seminar, and there are more Apples here than at the Berri factory. Mac-lovers unite!

*There is no divide. It's a joke. Don't comment.

The Holman

At Moore we have chapel services 3 days a week, where we read a chapter of the OT and a chapter of the NT at each service, apart from the passage being preached. I think this is fantastic. Because it's big slabs of text, it promotes helpful reading of the Bible, in a way which draws your attention and brings the passage to life. I think this type of systematic reading is an increasingly integral way of educating Biblically illiterate people. It goes against the grain of thought which says that:
a. You need someone to explain the Bible to you in order for it to be beneficial
b. We need to be brief and schmick in our services, so there's no time for this kind of thang.

Reading the unadorned word is an outworking of our theology of revelation.

Another great thing is Moore does not promote one translation of the Bible. The closest we get is the voraciousness of defenders of the Holman Christian Standard Bible, mainly from the verbal aspect crew who think the Holman peeps incorporate their schtick more. The Holman is the Bible pushed by the Southern Baptists in the US. These Southerners are well known for their extreme translation debates (which sounds like it could be sorted out UFC style), and it is strange to think this voracity has somehow seeped into the translation itself so that proponents out here pick up the 'defender of the faith' attitude.

Anyways, we get through the whole Bible every couple of years in chapel reading the one translation, and then switch translations. The Holman is just about finishing its run and then we're onto the TNIV (to me it would make more sense to go with the NIV (2011) as TNIV will be out of print soon, but I guess there's no surprise in an Anglican college being slow to change).

One annoying thing the Holman does is some words which aren't in the original languages but are being supplied to make the translation smoother, are placed in brackets. It is helpful in showing what is and isn't a reflection of the original, however rather than drawing attention away from these words, it ends up serving to focus attention on them. I reckon they should just have a go. If it really is needed to make the sentence make sense, just put the word in. If its not necessary, leave it out. People can always cross check translations to see where ambiguities exist. This happens in Bible Studies all the time as people have different Bibles.

Oh, and speaking of translations, I've retired my joke about "What do you think about The Message? I think there's lots of great children's Bibles." I actually think there are better children's Bibles.

Stuck

I was stuck.

A book on the evangelical response to John Wimber's signs and wonders movement in one hand, Ray Galea's response to Catholicism Nothing in My Hand I Bring somewhat ironically in the other.

A brief furniture change in my house (a change is as good as a holiday, and cheaper) had given me an opportunity to categorise the books on my bookshelf. In which section of my bookshelf should I place these books?

Catholicism went in world religions. Charismatic book in my general theology section.

This I think summarises my approach to those with whom I have serious theological disagreements. Very few Roman Catholic people I know understand the gospel, and so sadly are not trusting in Jesus' death and resurrection for their salvation but rather are attempting to justify themselves by their works. I am trying to speak the gospel to these people in order to convert them.

Most charismatic/pentecostal types I know are thoroughly trusting in the Lord Jesus. There are some fundamental flaws as I see it in their theology, which can lead to unhelpful expectations of what God will do that have the potential to affect their belief. But these are predominantly my brothers and sisters in Christ. I speak the gospel with these people in order to clarify the truth and to correct error.

Are there things that I find in speaking with others where I am deficient? Most certainly. But this is my approach to them.

Living in the big smoke these days means there are enough Christians of most denominations that we don't really have to communicate. Country churches don't get this luxury, and it is a great testimony and Christian witness the way that many combined churches events are held revealing the deep agreement between most mainline Protestant denominations.

I may have mentioned it here before, but I was rebuked once by a dear old Christian lady at my church in the country when in conversation I'd had a bit of a jibe at my charismatic brothers. She said, "Now, now Izaac, they'll be standing by our side when the Muslims try and take over." Now it certainly isn't the first criteria I'd use to determine Christian fellowship, however there is a certain beauty to the sentiment behind the words. That, and a whole lot of unhelpful vitriol towards Muslims.