Was Bunyan Dreaming of My Blog?

Bunyan relays this conversation between Christian and Atheist, and it sounds so much like the continued comment thread here.

***
So he drew nearer and nearer, and at last came up unto them. His name was Atheist, and he asked them whither they were going.
CHRISTIAN. We are going to Mount Zion.
Then Atheist fell into a very great laughter.
CHRISTIAN. What is the meaning of your laughter?
ATHEIST. I laugh to see what ignorant persons you are, to take upon you so tedious a journey, and you are like to have nothing but your travel for your pains.
CHRISTIAN. Why, man, do you think we shall not be received?
ATHEIST. Received! There is no such place as you dream of in all this world.
CHRISTIAN. But there is in the world to come.
ATHEIST. When I was at home in mine own country, I heard as you now affirm, and from that hearing went out to see, and have been seeking this city this twenty years; but find no more of it than I did the first day I set out. [Jer. 22:12, Eccl. 10:15]
CHRISTIAN. We have both heard and believe that there is such a place to be found.
ATHEIST. Had not I, when at home, believed, I had not come thus far to seek; but finding none, (and yet I should, had there been such a place to be found, for I have gone to seek it further than you), I am going back again, and will seek to refresh myself with the things that I then cast away, for hopes of that which, I now see, is not.

This is where they are at right now...

The Bugblasters have lost power as a result of some sort of disturbance. I'm assuming guessing that the following is the related news.

"During the weekend dispute, a nearby transformer station was seriously damaged by vandalism and fire, knocking out power to 8,000 residents of the area. It was expected to take days to restore full service."
(Full Globe & Mail article here.)

The New Baby (a photo essay)

In honor of Baby Isaac's two weeks out in the world...

Day One: The Delivery

Here he is, right out of the blocks, trying out those lungs.

Here is the proud grandmother (this was Nana's first time with us in the delivery room).

Here is the equally as proud grandfather (who opted out of delivery room duty this time).

Day Two: The Family Visits

Grandma from Arizona

An extra treat--a great grandmother sees another grandson.

Big sissy.

The biggest brother.

The bashful brother (and Dad).

The proud family.

Day 3: Home at last

Head Shot.

Turn to the side.

Mom & Dad's favourite time of the day.

Bonus: the Sycophantic Sidekick

The proud dad with his son.

How's that for product placement?

Epilogue: He wants to rule the world!

Hospital issued vomit bag

Is there no end to this guy's marketing?

Happy Birthday, Jen!

Today is my sister's birthday, so I thought I'd post a quick pic of her and the kids from this past December. She lives in the UK right now, so each visit is very special.

Happy Birthday, Aunt Jenny. Hope you had a great day!

The Agnostic and the Atheist

This article from the Washington Post is about Bart Ehrman. There is a cold emptiness in the story of how he lost his faith, made more grievous by the fact that it happened even as he was digging deeper into the original language manuscripts of the New Testament.

The Post makes mountains out of textual molehills in their coverage, but I don't blame them per-se--they're not Biblical scholars, so they can't be expected to realize what is significant or not. I'm guessing they are relaying what they've been fed, though in my estimation they've way overplayed their "noble skeptic" angle.

And as bitter icing for this distressing tale, we have Simon, whom we last saw discussing the Gospel, using this as yet another justification for his own rejection of God. (He gets the Hat Tip on the Ehrman article, BTW).

Update 05/23/06
Dan Phillips has posted his take on the Ehrman article at Pyro. As a bonus, he also includes a link to a piece he wrote awhile back: How To Make Your Very Own Jesus (including the blink command if you use Firefox.)

I'm Curious About "A Note from Philip Yancey" (from Zondervan's Author Blog)

I read this from Zondervan's author blog, and it left me wondering.

I'm not the best with historical politics, particularly overseas, so I was just thinking that some astute reader might chime in and tell me if Yancey's recounting of South Africa's history is mainly accurate or mostly something else. Anyone (*cough* William Dicks) is welcome to respond.

"A Christian Response to Hell" from Pyromaniacs

James Spurgeon has an excellent post on how Christians should respond to the doctrine of Hell. I've been thinking about this recently while having conversations with atheists.

Book review--How to Choose a Bible Version (Revised Edition) by Robert L. Thomas

Thought I would jot down some thoughts about this book by Robert Thomas that I finished awhile back. Dr. Thomas is a professor of New Testament at The Master's Seminary, and worked as a translator on both NASB editions (original and the update).

I picked up the book originally primarily to see if there was any opinion (read: endorsement) of the ESV, which is the version I currently use. Dr. Thomas has reportedly said that the ESV should be good, because it is about 80% NASB, but I don't have a direct quote, so you'll have to take that as a grain of salt.

In any case, given my original desire in acquiring the book, imagine my disappointment when I read this in the opening paragraph of the book: "It is not the purpose of this treatment to lead readers to a final decision as to which version is 'best' in each category of discussion." Then, in the first paragraph of the conclusion, he hammers this home: "Among other things [the survey of the five areas] has demonstrated that no perfect version of the English translation of the Bible is in existence. This is probably disappointing to many who are seeking to find one version that will serve all purposes." You can say that again!

Despite his lack of explicit endorsement of my version (my tongue planted firmly in my cheek here), there is much that is helpful. He outlines five areas that he asserts encompass much if not all that has been written or said about Bible translations. He goes through a brief explanation of each area, and then, using this as a framework, he evaluates versions based on it.

My biggest disappointment with the book, however, stems not from the content, but from the presentation. This book was printed in Scotland by Christian Focus Publications, out of their Mentor imprint, which "focuses on books written at a level suitable for Bible College and seminary students, pastors, and others. . .". Given that pedigree, these issues were unexpected. I was suprised to find these errors:

1) It appears that the Greek font used was not rendered properly. Thus, a sentence like the one on page 113 occurs,"An unfortunate aspect of the KJV is its method of translating daimovnion (daimonion), the Greek word for 'demon.' "

Those familiar with Greek will realize that the second word is the transliteration, so the first must be the actual word in Greek, but not shown with a Greek font (which would look like this: δαιμονίου). All instances of Greek words have this problem.

2) The chart on Page 34 of Bible versions in the Tyndale tradition omits the ESV; presumably, this was a chart from the previous edition that was not updated for this one, but since it was advertised as including the ESV, it is disappointing that it didn't make the chart.

3) On the top of page 100, the first letter in the paragraph is in italics, apparently a carryover from the heading above it. Though a minor thing, since the imprint is billed as suitable for college and seminary level, these types of errors should have been caught in the proofreading process.

With those negatives addressed, let me say that I do endorse this book. The subject of Bible translations is one that is near and dear to my heart (I hope to complete some additional posts about the subject in the near future), and this book, if used as directed, will help the reader think through the issues of Bible translation, and make a more informed decision about the translation he or she chooses.

I hope that if the book is revised (or reprinted), that the editorial/proofing issues might be addressed, as they mar what is otherwise a very helpful resource.

(Here is a link through Amazon.com. I'm not compensated by this--it is provided merely as a starting point for your own research.)

The Perfect Visual Summary of Centuri0n's Debate with Brian Flemming

Found this article and you may or may not want to read all of it. I'm going to post the concluding paragraphs, along with a link to the picture, though you may have to click through to see it clearly.

The bottom line is this: the premise you start with about whether Jesus rose from the dead will lead to your interpretation of the evidence about Christianity's formation. If you read any of the debate, you will see clearly how this chart applies, and why Cent & Brian are miles apart--their disparate views of history.

***
If Jesus of Nazareth rose again, then the God and Father of Jesus Christ was shown to be truly God. And not only did God validate Jesus’ person and work, but he also placed the disciples and eyewitnesses in a unique and authoritative place in history. The resurrection would inevitably affect our hermeneutic and historiography, because the resurrection of Jesus would be an event of such profound significance that all things must now be interpreted in light of this truth. Conversely, any interpretation of history that would ignore or reject the resurrection would be guilty of misinterpreting history and reality at its most fundamental level.

Since the resurrection of Jesus Christ is the central event upon which the Christian faith stands or falls, there can be no such thing as “orthodoxy” without it. However, believing scholars should not fault unbelieving scholars for criticizing believers’ creedal presuppositions. Nor should believers be surprised at unbelievers’ reconstruction of Christian origins and rejection of the categories of orthodoxy and heresy. Given their own creedal presupposition that the bodily resurrection of Jesus did not (or could not) occur, their methods and conclusions are inescapable. If Jesus did not rise bodily from the dead, any attempts at reconstruction, deconstruction, refining, redefining, discovering, or recovering the early history of Christianity are acceptable antes placed on the table in the scholarly contest over Christian origins.

But if on the third day Jesus rose from the dead, then all bets are off.




Quoted selection from: Michael J. Svigel, Th.M. (no date), “You got to know when to hold ’em”:Trumping the Bauer Thesis, Copyright ©1996-2006 Biblical Studies Press, Retrieved May 14, 2006, from http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=3949)

1st Baby Picture post

Yes, it really is 4 in the morning, and we just finished feeding Isaac.

Would have posted something sooner, but it's been pretty busy, and we I had some trouble finding the cord for the digital camera.

Mark, this one is for you. More to come (when I find time to edit a few--ha!).

The Role of a Woman--in the Fall and in the Church

Amy, a commenter over at Neil's blog, believes that the Bible is hostile to women, and that this (in part) stems from the fact that it blames Eve for all the sin in the world.

My original comment was this: Amy, the Bible doesn't "blame women for everything." If you read the account of the Fall (Gen 3), you'll see that in fact, while Eve was deceived by the serpent, Adam was the one who willfully sinned, and Adam is the one through whom sin entered the world"

Amy's response was this: And I can see how it can be easily read that way, but the bible tells on itself.
1 Timothy
2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.


So what I'd like to do is go through the account of Genesis 3, and then fast-forward to its significance in 1 Tim 2:13-14, which was a passage Amy cited as supporting her assertion.

Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made.

He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.

And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden. But the Lord God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?” And he said, “I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself.” He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?” The man said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.” Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this that you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

The Lord God said to the serpent,

“Because you have done this,
cursed are you above all livestock
and above all beasts of the field;
on your belly you shall go,
and dust you shall eat
all the days of your life.
I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel.”

To the woman he said,

“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you.”

And to Adam he said,

“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife
and have eaten of the tree
of which I commanded you,
‘You shall not eat of it,’
cursed is the ground because of you;
in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;
and you shall eat the plants of the field.
By the sweat of your face
you shall eat bread,
till you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken;
for you are dust,
and to dust you shall return.”

The man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living. And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them.

Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—” therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life. (Gen 3:1-24, ESV)

So where is the blame laid here? Well first, let's be clear that each party bears responsibility for their actions. That is why God pronounces individual judgments on the serpent, on Eve, and on Adam. But notice it says that Eve was deceived (which is exactly the same thing the verses Amy quoted from 1 Timothy said). Implicitly, though, we see that Adam wasn't deceived. He ate the fruit knowing full well he was doing the wrong thing. Finally, we see in Adam's judgment, not only the problems with the ground, but also the pronouncement of the curse--death.

As I mentioned previously to Amy, I think it's interesting to see the result of this sin. When God confronts him, Adam says "The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate." Who is Adam really blaming here? God! He's saying "God, you're the one who gave me this woman, and that's why I sinned." It is the typical response of someone caught in wrongdoing--trying to blameshift.

Ok, so does the New Testament support the idea that the sinful nature of people came from Adam? Before we go to Timothy, let's stop off in Romans, another of the Apostle Paul's letters.

Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned — sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the effect of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification. If, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous. Law came in, to increase the trespass; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Rom 5:12-21, RSV)

It's clear from Romans 5 that all of us have an inherited sin nature, and that nature comes from our first father, Adam. And yet all of us, like each individual in the verses from Genesis, still bear responsibility for our own sin, including its consequences.

So where does 1 Timothy fit in? This is a letter written by Paul to his young protege, Timothy, instructing him on how to be a church leader--a pastor. He gives lots of practical advice with theological underpinnings to it.

Let's look at the part Amy quoted from in context:

I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control. (1 Tim 2:8-15, ESV)

Paul's point to Timothy is to outline the different roles within the church. After encouraging people to pray for the salvation of all kinds of people (2:1-4), Paul encourages men about the good deeds they should do. Then he continues by encouraging women to focus more on their good works than on their appearance.

Then he discusses the woman's God-given role, and gives the reason for it, and finally, once again he encourages women to continue in good works of faith, love, and holiness. (Side note: Commentators are mixed on what "saved through childbearing" means--I can only tell you what it doesn't mean--it doesn't mean that my wife has secured her place in heaven by giving me 5 children.)

This is a difficult saying. More liberal churches have found a way to set it aside, by simply dismissing it as being for that day and time. More conservative churches take it literally, and as a result women in those churches may not hold teaching positions in areas where men are present. I hold to the latter view, and think it is more accurate interpretation of the passage. In our church, women may teach other women, and may teach the children, but may not teach a Sunday School with men, nor may they hold the office of pastor or elder.

Paul tells Timothy that there is a significance in the order of creation, that there is a significance that Eve was deceived, and that as a result, Paul does not allow women to teach men. This is the part where I would presume that someone like Amy, a self-proclaimed atheist and feminist, will become angry. In fact, I'm almost sure of it. For Amy, God doesn't exist, and religion is just man's way of exploiting women.

But God ordered things a certain way, and a part of that order was that men would be responsible for leading in the church. Why did He do this? I could speculate on why, but I'm not sure how productive that would be. I would rather simply stand on the fact that God ordained that it be this way, and endeavor to be as faithful as possible to what He ordained.

Does this make women inferior to men? Some might say yes, but I don't think so, unless you twist the Scripture and make it into something it isn't. It doesn't say women can't teach, and it doesn't say they can't understand; it merely prescribes limits within the specific setting of the church. Anything else is not faithful to Scripture.

Update
Libbie the English Muffin writes about gender and leadership issues here and here, and responds to a critique in the comments here.


Verses marked "RSV" are from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright 1952 [2nd edition, 1971] by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

The Wonder of the Womb

For you formed my inward parts;
you knitted me together in my mother's womb.
I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.
Wonderful are your works;
my soul knows it very well.
My frame was not hidden from you,
when I was being made in secret,
intricately woven in the depths of the earth.
Your eyes saw my unformed substance;
in your book were written, every one of them,
the days that were formed for me,
when as yet there were none of them.
(Ps 139:13-16, ESV)

I read this for family worship last night. It saddened me, as I reflected upon the fact that there are those who do not recognize the truths expressed here. Some prefer to believe that we are merely biological machines, without any souls or substance beyond this existence. Some fool themselves even into thinking that it is they that are responsible for bringing life into the world.

David's psalm is a reminder of the truth--that God is sovereign over this, the beginning part of life, as over all others. And he reminds us that God is creative, that he takes pleasure in each of us, that he lines out all the days of our lives before a single one has transpired. I can only echo the thoughts of David: "such knowledge is too wonderful for me...I cannot attain it."

New Baby (the short version)

Baby Isaac Brenton Gumm was born on May 8, 2006 at 11pm CT.
He was 8 lbs even, and 20 inches long.

Mom & baby are doing well.

Dad was suffering from blog withdrawal, but he's told that its effects are completely reversible. (I did consider briefly liveblogging the birth, but due to lack of proper equipment, it didn't work out. But since even Challies, the king of liveblogging, didn't bother to do that, so I don't feel so bad).

Pictures are forthcoming.

Baby Updates

I'm consolidating the baby update posts here, so that any who would like to can keep track.

05/10/06 13:21
Home at last! The baby arrived at 11pm on Monday, May 8th.

I will put an official post up later, but for now, let me just say on behalf of my wife, myself, and baby Isaac, thank you for all your prayers.

05/08/06 10:00
Nothing. Nada. No va. We did take a nice walk last night, though.
Keep praying for us, that the baby would come soon, and that we would have patience until then.

05/07/06 16:15
The antibiotics seem to be working, but we still have a bad cough. Not a whole lot else for the update. Our next OB appt. is tomorrow, and we were hoping not to keep it.

05/05/06 13:50
Well, it's official: the Mrs. is sick. Doc gave her a zPac, and she is resting at the moment. :(

Dad & kids will probably have to go without her to the work picnic tonite.

05/05/06 9:00
Nothing happening. How much of nothing? Mrs. G & I went to see MI:III last night at the late movie. I'm getting too old for that kind of stuff.

05/03/06 19:55
Back home from the hospital. Lots of contractions, but no progress. :(
On the plus side, my mom & grandma are flying in from Phoenix later tonite, and we're excited about that.

05/03/06 16:30
We're having a few contractions, and given where we are, the doctor's office said come on in to the hospital. If we're far enough, they may continue the process. Or, we may just come home.

05/03/06 13:45
We had a lovely morning together while the kids were at Community Bible Study. We got some Raspberry tea for Mrs. Gummby--the latest suggestion for labor instigation. She's had a cup, and is now resting peacefully. In fact, a little afternoon nap sounds good. Don't hate me for that--you wouldn't want to be me a week from now.

05/03/06 9:00
Relatively quiet night. No regular contractions. Despite my best efforts to get her to eat some spicy Mexican food, it was a no go. I figure one more night, maybe two, and she'll be willing to try anything. Mmm--chicken fajita nachos, here I come!

05/02/06 7:48
After I posted the false alarm, the contractions started again. We got to about 7 minutes apart, and I told Frank & Carla online we were on our way (we were actually on the phone with the doctor at that point). But the contractions slowed down, and finally stopped about 1AM 3AM or thereabouts (I guess I just fell asleep in the chair at 1AM), so no baby yet, and little sleep as well. Guess the Lord is still in the preparation stage.

Stay tuned.

05/01/06 21:39
Sorry, false alarm. No baby.
The doc did say he expected him to come sometime this week, though, so stay tuned.

05/01/06 20:18
Moving To Yellow Alert
Yes, it may be time for baby.
If you don't see me post for the next couple of days, you'll know why.

You Stink!

But thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession, and through us spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of him everywhere. For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life. (2 Cor 2:14-16a, ESV)

The picture here is one of the Roman victory procession. Prisoners would be marched through the streets in a parade. The leader of the procession swung a censor back and forth, and the fragrance it emitted was the sweet smell of victory to the crowd; but to the prisoners, that same smell was the smell of their own, impending death. What a vivid picture of the Gospel!

For a Blogospheric example of this, take a look at this recent post from Frank Turk. Frank presents the Gospel in his post. As you look at the comments, you can see that the same exact post evokes blessing and scorn--to those who have life, the Gospel is a beautiful perfume, but to those perishing, it just stinks.

What Kind of Bible for my Children?

It's either odd or fitting (I can't decide which) that on the brink of another baby I should ask this question. It's been bothering me for awhile now, and though we're close to a final decision, more input may be helpful.

My dilemma is this: my 7 year old is a good reader (though not yet as adept as an adult, of course). We would like to get her a Bible well-suited to her.

My own experience in this area is no help. I grew up with King James until high school, and though I suppose I understood it well enough, I don't think I understood it that well at 7.

I've been singularly unimpressed with Bible offerings for kids. They generally need a larger print, and I don't mind pictures, but I'm somewhat distrustful of notes that come with them. How do I know if they are accurate, short of reading them all myself? So I've been leaning toward a Bible that offers large print, text only, and smaller words.

I've been leaning toward the NIrV (gasp), because it requires a smaller vocabulary, has a better format, and (from the spot-checking I've done) is less gender-neutral than even the TNIV.

But yes, it is also more dynamic--I'm giving up some in translation. But my plan is that once the vocabulary is there, we could graduate to a larger Bible.

I was challenged recently by someone I trust. Should the primary factor in Bible reading be ease of reading? Is the Bible supposed to be easy to read? And should I worry that my daughter becomes so comfortable in this translation that she doesn't ever graduate up?

I don't know, and I've not been through this process before. But many of you have, since you have older children. Many of you share the commitment I have to a more literal translation, and all (that I know of) to a faithful, evangelical translation.

What have you done with your kids? How would you advise me about mine?

Thanks in advance.

False Alarm!

Sorry, false alarm. No baby.

The doc did say he expected him to come sometime this week, though, so stay tuned.

Update (05/02/06 7:48 AM CT)

After I posted the false alarm, the contractions started again. We got to about 7 minutes apart, and I told Frank & Carla online we were on our way. But the contractions slowed down, and finally stopped about 1 AM or thereabouts, so no baby yet.

Stay tuned.

Moving To Yellow Alert

Yes, it may be time for baby.

If you don't see me post for the next couple of days, you'll know why.

Quote of the Week: On being heavenly-minded

We had a guest in our pulpit yesterday, Brad Vaden. I loved this quote from his sermon:

"Let us be so heavenly-minded that we are of some earthly good. "