Grammar Devil

I don't know why I came up with this today, it kind of just happened. For what it's worth, I think it's pretty clever.

I Apologize in Advance

Knock, knock, knock Doctor . . . (x 3)

This morning as I was waking from sleep, I don't know why, but I had this thought:

Knock knock.

Who's there?

Yes, the Doctor. 

Doctor Who?

Precisely.

2016: The Year of Liberty and Justice for All

I don’t do election politics. I do little with prophecy and nothing with Pokémon. When Christians – through a contorted process of hermeneutical gymnastics – feel the need to combine contemporary political and world events with prophetic scriptural passages, it grinds me. I like history, as many do. But most people don’t learn anything from history, and even fewer learn from politics, amidst the screams of sanity being a rare commodity. I'm not sure where the Pokémon go. I'm also not sure what the plural is for Pokémon. 

As with most civilizations preceding us, all hit their strides, eventually began a decline (some quicker than others, and with or without outside help) and ceased as a civilization or recognizable entity. Undoubtedly, ours will someday follow a similar pattern. There will be a strong competent leader at the podium making grand speeches (or at least plagiarized ones), promises (meant to be broken) and waxing eloquent or shooting from the hip. But more than likely it will not be the election and subsequent administration of that individual alone to cause the decline and fall of the American Empire any more than one emperor of Rome was to blame.

By now, I’m sure everyone is aware that Obama was definitely the anti-christ or the messiah who was assuredly destined to usher in the age of desolation, culminating with the rapture of the saints or bring redemption and everlasting peace to this land. Yeah. Guess what, I still put my pants on the same way - most mornings. The point being, regardless which candidate is elected to this year’s puppet post, it will not be the single contributing factor to bringing our civilization to its knees or less likely, to usher in a new golden era. 

While the American public is entertained by this monstrosity of reality show (which once again highlights our pathetic outlook of reality), we are convinced once more (by some magical madness I can’t understand) that reform from Washington is even possible by any one candidate. Even if the perfect candidate did somehow make it to the Oval Office, it wouldn’t fix everyone’s problems any more than Bush’s or Obama’s administration did.

I am always encouraged with the progression of our species when I visit social media. Social media has become a central hub for the knowledgeable and savvy on any given situation or scenario. These wonders of the web serve up facts by the page-full, along with pointed YouTube links which bring otherwise productive internet discussions to an abrupt halt, refuting once and for all those who seek to overthrow their personal lack of self-confidence. If the Church, all branches of government and the academic world (including the sciences) could get their hands on these internet eggheads, perhaps we could see some real improvement in the world.

Of course my candidate is the best and the only hope for the world. Certainly my particular strand of religion and interpretation schema of the Bible is the only truth known to man. And who could doubt my view of the sciences, which are built on the right set facts and are in complete biblical harmony against the godless scientists and scholars. Why else would God favor me and my candidate?

Illusion dominates our culture. We spend a great deal of time trying to convince everyone else of many things and yet live with daunting reality that we have not convinced ourselves (or God). But we still try somehow to persuade ourselves that the illusion we are promoting is the truth, because the illusion has become much more appealing than the truth ever was. For what other reason has social media become so popular?

Note: This post is full of sarcasm.

The God We Want to See

There are many who hold to the mantra of the reformation, sola scriptura (Scripture alone), but also insist that “one specific” translation of the Bible is a prerequisite to one’s faith and spiritual well-being - God’s only authorized version.

How can it be suggested that a specific translation is alone “God ordained” if one sincerely holds to "Scripture alone"? In order to make the argument of God’s choice of translation being made manifest to man, post-biblical revelation is the only option due to the fact that the Bible (regardless of translation) says nothing of the sort. It also implies that not only is Christianity text-centric, but God is as well. 

The only argument that can be made is entirely outside of Scripture. Hence, the staunchly held belief is not based on Scripture alone, but rather opinion.

They that approve a private opinion, call it opinion; but they that dislike it, heresy; and yet heresy signifies no more than private opinion." Thomas Hobbes

Translation onlyists need to take a little stroll down the textual and manuscript history path. Those who cling earnestly to this mistaken paradigm for a "biblical worldview" seem to be ignorant regarding the logical fallacy of attempting to authenticate a book by quoting from it (done almost exclusively in an anachronistic way). It would be like me quoting myself as proof for why I am correct.

It does not take an experienced historian to make the observation that God is not a patriotic American affiliated with a certain denomination or demographic. He does not have a political designation (save the theocratic party) or a fascination with the English language. He is not a KJV onlyist and certainly does not dislike all the people we do. Re-think what it means to create god in our image and after our likeness.

"Is the inspired Bible the one that we actually use? The King James Version? Some people continue to insist so, even if it does seem to be a rather silly view: do you mean that for all those centuries before the King James translators got to work, Christians did not have access to God’s inspired word? What was God thinking? Some other modern translation then? The Hebrew and Greek texts from which these English translations are made? If one chooses the last option, what does one do about the fact that we don’t have the original Hebrew and Greek texts of any of the books of the Bible, but only later copies of these texts, all of which have mistakes?" 

Bart Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don’t Know About Them) (2009 Harper Collins), 182.

Prophetic Revamp

For those who enjoy a bit of satire: check this out.

Discount Prophecy

I have a "rapture" post which will definitely appear anytime now, but until then enjoy this beautiful little gem collected via Facebook.

Denied Dependence

It continues to entertain me when I read or listen to some fundamentalist claims such as "I only trust the Bible's words" or "I don't read scholarship and commentaries, only God's word." I first saw this handy little flow chart on James McGrath's blog. He remarked,

"Does someone claim that they simply read the Bible and have no need for scholars, when they are reading the Bible in translation, or reading critical editions of the texts in the original languages, or using manuscripts copied by scribes, having learned Hebrew and Greek with the help of textbooks and lexicons? That person is a liar, plain and simple."

Perhaps you may find some interest in it.

Stand-up for the Bible - "Second Corinthians"!

In case you missed it, social media and other sources are bubbling with Christian responses to Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump regarding his recent speech at Liberty University. In his reference to Paul's second letter to the Corinthians, he said "two Corinthians" rather than the more familiar (at least to American Christians) "second Corinthians."

Americans love to be opinionated and raise issues with anything apparently. Many academic theological works by scholars such as N.T. Wright use "two Corinthians" (meaning "2 Corinthians") rather than "second Corinthians" on a regular basis. So perhaps if more time was invested reading (or listening) to theological works by Europeans and less time watching presidential nominees, these great difficulties threatening the vitality of true Christianity would be resolved (that was a joke btw).

James McGrath covered it well on his blog here and here.

"how did you learn to refer to the letters as letters, and multiple letters to the same destination by ordinal rather than cardinal numbers?"

Black Friday

Well, I braved the internet traffic on Black Friday, got out into cyberspace and purchased some books. I believe I got a fair deal, but one site (not mentioning any names but is a Latin pun for "by books") about made me strangle my poor mouse. After a brief heated exchange with myself, I calmly found my way back to the giant corporate corridors of the tropical establishment where the harried and helpless consumer is always greeted with a smile, and wish lists are seamlessly turned into credit card statements.

Apostle Paul - God in Flesh

Unbeknownst to some readers of the New Testament, the Apostle Paul, while attempting to evangelize and maintain his humility hinted at his divine nature. He claimed that he was the God of Israel, Yahweh, the I AM in flesh. Take a look at these irreconcilable proofs that could be seen in no other way by his audience. There is little question that they would have readily understood his claim to God-man-ship. This is probably the underlying reason why the religious leaders tried to kill him, why they wouldn't listen and eventually why he was killed in Rome.

"But by the grace of God I AM what I AM..." 1 Cor. 15:10
"So that you also may know how I AM and what I AM..." Eph. 6:21
"Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I AM..." Col. 1:24 

"Accordingly, though I AM..." Philemon 8

Not only is Paul claiming to be the Ex. 3 I AM, he is also not claiming merely to be one of three "Whos" but the "What"! 

(For the sake of confusion, let it be known that this is a joke, much like many Christological interpretations. In none of these passages did Paul use ego eimi.)