I have a love-hate relationship with study Bibles. I hate having to buy a whole Bible just for the notes – it would be far better if they were a separate volume or, better, electronic.
Plus, there is a danger that people will mix up the Bible text and the study notes in their memories – meaning they will start to think the notes are part of the inspired text and anyone who disagrees with the note is a heretic. It can happen. (R.C. Sproul raised this issue some years back … before editing a study Bible.)
And, of course, there is the danger that people reading the notes will put more confidence in them than in a regular commentary because they’re “in the Bible.”
Finally, I hate having to spread all these study Bibles out on my desk (or, more likely, dining room table) to examine all the notes on a particular passage.
That said, there are some interesting study Bibles out there. A recent, useful addition to the genre is the new Apologetics Study Bible from Holman.
It combines apologetic marginal notes with short articles on a variety of topics (e.g., evolution, biblical genealogies, Mormonism, medicine, pluralism, and annihilationism), biographical blurbs (e.g., Anselm, Joseph Butler, and Pascal), “twisted scriptures,” and a number of useful charts. The contributors were a few dozen Christian thinkers including Ronald Nash, Walter Kaiser, Paul Copan, and J.P. Moreland.
The articles are generally very interesting, if brief, statements on some issue of import and debate in our society.
The notes aren’t always golden, but there is some great material – some apologetic and some simply explanatory – as well as some truly interesting nuggets of historical trivia. One example: Leviticus 12:1-5 – “Ancient Near Eastern polytheism, related to the cycles of nature, placed great emphasis on fertility; the Israelite regulations governing a new mother may represent a reaction to this emphasis.”
The Bible text is the Holman Christian Standard, which I had not previously read, but the translation philosophy seems to be similar to the NIV. The translation is occasionally surprising, but usually it reads pretty much like most modern translations.
I have not, obviously, read every word on every page of this study Bible yet, but what I’ve seen thus far, and the caliber of the contributors, makes me confident that this would be a worthwhile addition to your library.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Steroids and Other Christian Scandals
I saw this headline on Yahoo: “Florida Gators QB now in football record books.”
The first thought that formed, unbidden, in my mind: What do you think he’s on?*
Recent revelations of drug use by many professional athletes is beginning to affect all athletes. It’s an unfortunate aspect of human nature.
Given some recent revelations regarding high profile Christian pastors, it may soon get to the point where any pastor (maybe even Christian) will be greeted with an automatic “who do you think he’s sleeping with?”
We have to remember that if people know, or even suspect, we’re a Christian our behavior does not just reflect on us. It can affect how people see all Christians and even Christ. We are a lamp shining in the darkness. Everyone can see our light. If that light is darkness, how great is that darkness.
We all need the occasional reminder that people are watching us. Our “testimony” truly is more than just the words we say about Jesus. Everything we do and say has the potential to pull people toward or push them away from Christ.
No pressure.
----------
* I am in no way implying that this young man has been using any kind of performance enhancing drugs. That, in fact, is the point.
Related posts:
Toddlers with Road Rage
Religious Bigotry and Christian Behavior
Hitler, You, and Me
The first thought that formed, unbidden, in my mind: What do you think he’s on?*
Recent revelations of drug use by many professional athletes is beginning to affect all athletes. It’s an unfortunate aspect of human nature.
Given some recent revelations regarding high profile Christian pastors, it may soon get to the point where any pastor (maybe even Christian) will be greeted with an automatic “who do you think he’s sleeping with?”
We have to remember that if people know, or even suspect, we’re a Christian our behavior does not just reflect on us. It can affect how people see all Christians and even Christ. We are a lamp shining in the darkness. Everyone can see our light. If that light is darkness, how great is that darkness.
We all need the occasional reminder that people are watching us. Our “testimony” truly is more than just the words we say about Jesus. Everything we do and say has the potential to pull people toward or push them away from Christ.
No pressure.
----------
* I am in no way implying that this young man has been using any kind of performance enhancing drugs. That, in fact, is the point.
Related posts:
Toddlers with Road Rage
Religious Bigotry and Christian Behavior
Hitler, You, and Me
Thursday, November 15, 2007
The Ironies of the Cross
On that wretched day the soldiers mocked him
Raucous laughter in a barracks room
Hail the king they sneered while spitting on him
Brutal beatings on this day of doom
Though his crown was thorn, he was born a king
Holy brilliance bathed in bleeding loss
All the soldiers blind to this stunning theme
Jesus reigning from a bloody cross
Awful weakness marks the battered god-man
Far too broken now to heist the beam
Soldiers strip him bare and pound the nails in
Watch him hanging on the cruel tree
God’s own temple’s down he has been destroyed
Death’s remains are laid in rock and sod
But the temple rises in god’s wise ploy
Our great temple is the Son of God
Here’s the one who said he cares for others
One who said he came to save the lost
How can we believe he saves others
When he can’t get off that bloody cross
Let him save himself, let him come down now
Savage jeering at the king’s disgrace
But by hanging there is precisely how
Christ saves others as the king of grace
Draped in darkness utterly rejected
Crying why have you forsaken me
Jesus bore God’s wroth alone dejected
Wept the bitterest tears instead of me
And the mockers cried he has lost his trust
He is defeated by hypocrisy
But with faith’s resolve Jesus knows he must
Do God’s will and swallow death for me
The preceding poem is a transcript I made from a recording of an excellent D.A. Carson sermon called the Ironies of the Cross. (from a D.A. Carson sermon archive)
Raucous laughter in a barracks room
Hail the king they sneered while spitting on him
Brutal beatings on this day of doom
Though his crown was thorn, he was born a king
Holy brilliance bathed in bleeding loss
All the soldiers blind to this stunning theme
Jesus reigning from a bloody cross
Awful weakness marks the battered god-man
Far too broken now to heist the beam
Soldiers strip him bare and pound the nails in
Watch him hanging on the cruel tree
God’s own temple’s down he has been destroyed
Death’s remains are laid in rock and sod
But the temple rises in god’s wise ploy
Our great temple is the Son of God
Here’s the one who said he cares for others
One who said he came to save the lost
How can we believe he saves others
When he can’t get off that bloody cross
Let him save himself, let him come down now
Savage jeering at the king’s disgrace
But by hanging there is precisely how
Christ saves others as the king of grace
Draped in darkness utterly rejected
Crying why have you forsaken me
Jesus bore God’s wroth alone dejected
Wept the bitterest tears instead of me
And the mockers cried he has lost his trust
He is defeated by hypocrisy
But with faith’s resolve Jesus knows he must
Do God’s will and swallow death for me
The preceding poem is a transcript I made from a recording of an excellent D.A. Carson sermon called the Ironies of the Cross. (from a D.A. Carson sermon archive)
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Links: Giving, Selling, Laughing
Please consider being part of the Light of the World campaign to send the weatherproof Outdoor Bible to troops overseas.
I recommend reading Selling Books in the Church by a deacon who runs the "bookstall" at Capitol Hill Baptist Church. I've had my qualms about church bookstores, but he makes some great points. However, my qualms are only calmed to the extent what he says it true for a given bookstore, for example:
"Having books on hand allows a pastor to exercise discernment for the benefit of the congregation." I've been to church bookstores where the stuff on the shelf seems to have been chosen by someone who watches either too much TBN or too much CNN.
"We sell at cost." Marvelous! How many church bookstores do this though?
(HT: Challies)
Just for laughs: Dilbert vs Dogbert on evolution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19PfUIovUaU
(HT: Evangelical Outpost)
I recommend reading Selling Books in the Church by a deacon who runs the "bookstall" at Capitol Hill Baptist Church. I've had my qualms about church bookstores, but he makes some great points. However, my qualms are only calmed to the extent what he says it true for a given bookstore, for example:
"Having books on hand allows a pastor to exercise discernment for the benefit of the congregation." I've been to church bookstores where the stuff on the shelf seems to have been chosen by someone who watches either too much TBN or too much CNN.
"We sell at cost." Marvelous! How many church bookstores do this though?
(HT: Challies)
Just for laughs: Dilbert vs Dogbert on evolution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19PfUIovUaU
(HT: Evangelical Outpost)
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Defining Evolution: Getting Terms Right
Recently I defined intelligent design (ID), said ID isn't science, and looked at the problem with naturalism. This post is loosely related to those.
As Jon has twice emphasized the importance of understanding our terms when discussing evolution, we really should ask: What does the word “evolution” mean? It can be kind of slippery.
1. Change over time
The most general and least controversial use of the word is simply to say that things change over time. Many things evolve: individual people evolve, languages evolve, recipes evolve. And yet this use will occasionally raise hackles.
2. Microevolution
When speaking about biological creatures, microevolution is those changes that occur within a species to emphasize certain traits. Breeding dogs until you have a particularly long-haired variety is microevolution. Drug resistance is another example – if an infection is not wiped out by a drug, the surviving pathogens will probably not be as strongly affected by the drug in the future.
3. Macroevolution
This is what most people mean when they say “evolution.” This is the gradual change of one species into another, sometimes referred to as descent with modification or speciation. This is that piece that is theorized but has never been observed in nature nor in the fossil record.
Why this is important: A special brand of equivocation
Getting our terms correct is important because evidence for one is often applied to another kind – specifically, evidence for microevolution is often passed off as evidence for macroevolution.
A couple of years ago I saw a Doonesbury cartoon that did this very thing with drug resistance. It uses the idea of being treated with ancient, and useless, drugs as a scare tactic to get people to accept evolution. The only problem with this is that “creationists” don’t have any issues with microevolution. It is speciation that we question.
Why do people mix things up like this? In my more charitable moments I attribute it to intellectual laziness. In my less charitable moments, I attribute it to dishonesty. I’m open to other interpretations if they’re offered, though.
Summing it up
This is post is not meant to be an argument against Darwinian evolution. My primary goal here is to make readers aware of the bait-and-switch that goes on with the word “evolution” and to help you guard against it. My secondary goal is to encourage any evolutionists who visit to be careful and clear in their terminology. The equivocation isn’t going to work much longer – more and more people are becoming aware of it. You’re going to have to argue your case with actual evidence of speciation if you want to get anywhere. If you decline, you’ll only make the creationist’s job easier. Which, of course, isn’t really a bad thing at all :-)
As Jon has twice emphasized the importance of understanding our terms when discussing evolution, we really should ask: What does the word “evolution” mean? It can be kind of slippery.
1. Change over time
The most general and least controversial use of the word is simply to say that things change over time. Many things evolve: individual people evolve, languages evolve, recipes evolve. And yet this use will occasionally raise hackles.
2. Microevolution
When speaking about biological creatures, microevolution is those changes that occur within a species to emphasize certain traits. Breeding dogs until you have a particularly long-haired variety is microevolution. Drug resistance is another example – if an infection is not wiped out by a drug, the surviving pathogens will probably not be as strongly affected by the drug in the future.
3. Macroevolution
This is what most people mean when they say “evolution.” This is the gradual change of one species into another, sometimes referred to as descent with modification or speciation. This is that piece that is theorized but has never been observed in nature nor in the fossil record.
Why this is important: A special brand of equivocation
Getting our terms correct is important because evidence for one is often applied to another kind – specifically, evidence for microevolution is often passed off as evidence for macroevolution.
A couple of years ago I saw a Doonesbury cartoon that did this very thing with drug resistance. It uses the idea of being treated with ancient, and useless, drugs as a scare tactic to get people to accept evolution. The only problem with this is that “creationists” don’t have any issues with microevolution. It is speciation that we question.
Why do people mix things up like this? In my more charitable moments I attribute it to intellectual laziness. In my less charitable moments, I attribute it to dishonesty. I’m open to other interpretations if they’re offered, though.
Summing it up
This is post is not meant to be an argument against Darwinian evolution. My primary goal here is to make readers aware of the bait-and-switch that goes on with the word “evolution” and to help you guard against it. My secondary goal is to encourage any evolutionists who visit to be careful and clear in their terminology. The equivocation isn’t going to work much longer – more and more people are becoming aware of it. You’re going to have to argue your case with actual evidence of speciation if you want to get anywhere. If you decline, you’ll only make the creationist’s job easier. Which, of course, isn’t really a bad thing at all :-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)