Shit Yeah.

Editor’s note: I am not allowed here (on this blog) to bring politics or other issues into the fray. This blog is strictly about what the Bible is, and tools for interpreting this amazing collection of writings that some call Holy Writ, and others, simply respect. The following, therefore, is restricted to only issues of interpretation. But I cannot think of a better example to use than the biblical usage of the word “shit”. That being said, I have no such restrictions at the book site for The Doghouse Diaries. So please feel free to go there afterward and comment or question (or okay…condemn if you must).

Reading some good blog posts from pastors, laypeople and writers on the issue of “language”. Specifically swearing. This morning there was a question from one friend who asked what we all thought of a Derek Webb song from his Cd Stockholm Syndrome which uses the word “shit.”

TO which I replied with a poem written years ago (just could not find the right audience):

No Shit

No shit
Made the
Translation
Not Exodus 29:14
Not Judges 3:22
Not Isaiah 57:20-21
Not Philippians 3:8
All modern
Translators

Refuse

To spell the
Simple truth.

___________________________

Profane? Coarse? Inappropriate?

No. Biblical. Unless you count all that is above (which some do) as such.

This is why Hermeneutics is so crucial (accurate biblical interpretation). Becasue if you have a question and you go DEEPER you will be surprised what you find.

Exodus 29:14

The making of priests including Aaron comes directly from God to Moses. It is not even via a prophet. In verse 13 specific instructions continue on what must be done in the  sacrifice of the bull and which pieces of the bull are to be placed on the alter and what is to be done with the blood of the bull. Next, the remaining parts are to be taken outside the camp as an “offering to take a way sin”. These include the bull’s meat, skin and it’s shit.

Yes, literally bull shit.

Modern translations have tried to “soften” the literal meaning to “lower intestines” etc. Does not say that. Says shit.

The bull shit was part of the sin offering outside the camp. (you can see how restrained I have to be…)

Judges 3:22 Ehud and The Fat Man

In Judges 3 Eglon the King of Moab has defeated Israel and ruled over them for 18 years. After they had enough of being oppressed, the Israelites cried out to God for help and he send Ehud as a “judge”.  Ehud, was left-handed and he fashioned  sword 18 inches long and fastened it to the inside of his right leg under his garment. After the servants that accompanied Ehud to deliver the payment that Eglon had demanded, Ehud told the King that God had a secret message for him.  The King, who is described in verse 17 as “a very fat man” sent his servants and the men who had accompanied Ehud out so he could hear in private the message.

At which point Ehud got close and talking the sword from the inside of his right leg “stabbed the sword deep into the king’s belly! Even the handle sank in, and the blade came out his back”. That is the New Century Version.

The NASB is closer: “The handle also went in after the blade, and the fat closed over the blade, for he did not draw the sword out of his belly; and the refuse came out”.

The King James allows for “dirt” to somehow come out.

So, When Ehud came to the King to deliver God’s message it was with a sword and ended in shit.

Isaiah 57:20-21 Evil folk like an Angry sea

You will have to see other writings on the difference biblically between sinners (missing the mark), and those given over to evil. If you have ever met a person who has given themselves over to evil….”I mean Eeee-ville as in the Fru-its of the Dev-vil” (So I married an Axe Murder) then the description by Isaiah will make sense “they are like an angry sea which cannot rest whose waves toss up dirt and shit”.

“Waste” or “dung” are the closest translators (knowing full well) will allow themselves.

NT: The most Infamous Shit: Philippians 3:8

This passage is crucial because on it almost all of the questions of “righteousness” depend. Paul, Jew of Jews, a Pharisee who kept the law of God and was so zealous for his religion that he persecuted Christians before his conversion says flatly.

But indeed I also consider everything to be loss on account of the surpassing knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, on account of whom I forfeited all things; and I consider them shit so that I may gain Christ…

The Greek word is “skabula” and it means human shit and was meant to be as vulgar in its day is it is meant today. Paul’s wished the contrast to be shocking between his self-righteousness (read whole chapter for context) and the value of that compared to “knowing Christ” and trusting in Christ’s righteousness. He counts all his best religious efforts as shit.

Now this does not directly answer the ever-generational question of pastors dropping F-bomb in sermons or an incident (small) that I had yesterday.

No. In this limited context (accurate reading of the Bible) all it means is it says what it says. So stop sanitizing it. And if you are a preacher and you preach on Phlippians 3:8 for example, to not say Paul said “shit” is dishonest and gutless.

And with that I will stop. But move over to The Doghouse where much more open and wide discussion can be held.

The point here is accuracy is very important, and context is everything.

From Skin-Diving to Group Scuba

When I wrote the article on reading and studying the Bible as “Splashing or Scuba” I left off at an intermediary state: “skin-diving”. From there came the nationwide news story of “Conservapedia.com” and their attempt to rewrite the Bible thousands of years later from a biased point of view and from the 1611 KJV.

That is an attempt to scuba-dive with no tank, regulator, BCD, octopus, and certainly no depth computer.

So, in fact, we were able to see, in the previous article how not to do it, and in the meantime some of the serious work that needs to be done if you want to go deeper in scripture.

I did a commentary on Paul’s letter to the Colossians which I am preparing for free download here at The Grand Book. It is incomplete (it ends at 4:6, but attempts to hit the meatier parts of this profound Christocentric letter).

It took me at least 6 months to write it, mostly because I had to do all of the work myself, which could be tedious. But  hey, try reading seven commentaries on one book (in detail), then doing the additional Greek word study when necessary. Then you have to type it all up (this included my creating my own Greek character font for my Mac…and NO, the “symbol” font will not work).

I’ll stop whining. Point is, you at your church or small group have a tremendous opportunity.

Without trying to be critical, have you often found small groups to deal in a general, even cursory way with passages in question?

I have been to many small groups, and the idea is necessary because churches need “Church beyond Church”. So we have small group Bible studies, but are we really studying? Are we really exploring the texts of God’s Word, or are we answering pre-canned questions looking for the “right” answer, or afraid of speaking the wrong one?

Admittedly, I am not the norm. I was built to both teach and to go deep. This is not required of everyone by ANY stretch of the imagination. But wouldn’t you like to have other biblical images and passages that you understood come to mind as your preacher or pastor delivered their message on Sunday mornings or at a weekly study?

Let me use a silly example. I bought an old Volkswagen bug. It’s a 1969 classic and beat up in some ways. The windshield wipers don’t work (which is lots of fun this time of year!) the sunroof leaks water (talk about full immersion…this is not sprinkling after a good Arkansas rain), and up until recently the hood and right front fender looked like that part of the ship in Aliens that is all corroded and looks half eaten. The carburetor in back sometimes spurts/leak gas. I keep a fire extinguisher in the passenger side of the car.

Now where would I be without a toolkit, or just standard American sockets instead of metrics?

But what if two friends from the local “Bug Club” come over with their ramps, their tool boxes, a fresh look and some experience? We can talk about the best way to really handle the “issues” at hand and think and work things through. It is also a lot more fun!

So my suggestion, along those same lines, is not that you have a master teacher (unless your pastor or biblical education teacher) but rather a facilitator who feels so led and who knows how to keep things moving and let everyone speak and be heard.  Then comes a simple, yet radical idea.

What about assigning a commentary each to people in your small group. For those more academically inclined it could be an English translation of a Greek commentary for the passage in question.

This is not as hard as it sounds. A Young Life leader taught me (a high school C- student) how to do this at age 19. So, let’s say one member shells out $25 for the complete four volume hardbound set of Vincent’s commentaries. That’s a start.

The group decides to study, say Colossians.  It is small, and written to mostly uneducated Gentiles living in what is now Turkey (Asia Minor). It shouldn’t be too hard. Next you ask your pastor or a good teacher what good commentaries are available on Colossians?

Sadly, these books will NOT be available at your local Christian bookstore, or very rarely. Instead, however you may yet be able to get either these “testamints”  ; or the Ten Plague finger puppets. Hours of fun, but they will not help you make friends or help your kids (or adults) understand the Bible (but you will have the fresh scent of mint on your breath).

So you will have to go to Amazon or CBD.com. Even at CBD you may find it hard to actually find the commentaries (it was not always so). But they are there. For individual commentaries I suggest Amazon. They may be able to get you a very affordable used copy of an important one.

Let’s say there are ten people in your small group, which means 7-8 show up (this is very good) weekly. They are more apt to show up and simply DVR or TIVO House, or Lost, or CSI whatever if they actually have something ahead of time to share. (Note: I am not being cynical. I would show up to, but would DVR  some of those programs, especially Fringe or Fast Forward) . They may also invite friends, as a small group with coffee and snacks is a lot less intimidating than church may sometimes be at first.

N.T. Wright on Colossians and Philemon

Divide them up as you wish, or trade off every once and awhile since you are studying the same passage together ahead of time before you meet.

For Colossians, I would get a number of commentaries: N.T. Wright’s book ($12), and F.F. Bruce’s commentary (pricey at $30 but anything by Bruce is nearly priceless). The Bruce book will be the most detailed, but still accessible (give it to a nerd like myself).

If all this seems a bit over-intellectual (I could barely write an English sentence at 19), then also add these: Max Lucado’s commentary, or  J.B. Lightfoot’s commentary updated by J.I. Packer (this may be a bit heady too, but if you can figure out Facebook apps, you can get this).

I would steer you away from good books by good men like Bill Hybels and John MacArthur because they are both somewhat “pre-processed” and that misses the whole point. Who wants to see snapshots of someone else’s scuba dive when they can dive in themselves?

No, you want to study personally, then come together to discuss what you have learned, what questions you have , and share personal reflections that relate.

But also, a good devotional book like Sam Storms Hope of Glory, may really add a whole new devotional angle on Colossians. You may find (if someone plays music) that one or two of these reflections  take the study and frame them more personally, naturally leading to worship. Or, perhaps someone, has been assigned to find a song to play from a  CD that covers some of the issues of the passage.  Be open to letting people’s natural and spiritual giftedness come out in this!

C.S. Lewis one commented that every good piece of theology should also lead into worship.

Other suggestions. Create a Facebook fan page where each of you can blog in relevant passages from what you are reading ahead of time. The  key to this is to explore the depths of God’s Word together and enjoy that exploration together.  Add what you like. Journal individually, or not.

If you hit a problem or an argument breaks out about a passage talk with your pastor (though those who scuba together are taught over and over to protect and look after each other!). You can even write the author (in the age of email this is not always impossible).

Of course you can write me as well. But I prefer you first do it in your small group under your pastor’s care and encouragement. I can guarantee, that as long as you keep a humble and teachable attitude, your pastor and others will be delights, no…inspired by your studies as a group.

You will experience real connection with what you are studying and will find you are thinking about it throughout the week. I believe this is part of God’s intention in protecting and providing the Word to you and I.

As always, please leave comments and questions. If you feel you want to do this and want further advice you, or your pastor can email me and thereby get my phone number.

I am in the Greater Little Rock area to assist. Why? It’s what I do.

Conservapedia to change the Bible

Topics from the Conservapedia.com front page.

Well, it seems certain that the new Bible “translation” by the folk at Conservapedia will not be translating the words of Jesus in red. In fact in many cases they will not be translating the Bible at all, but changing the meanings of specific passages to 1) remove anything they deem supportive of American Liberalism); and 2) to accentuate any passages that can be made to seem more Conservative, free-market and down-right Republican.

We are not talking about a commentary on the Bible by Conservatives. Nothing wrong with that except it would not be based grammatically or linguistically. We are talking about literally changing or deleting words from legitimate translations.  Here is their agenda verbatim:

Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations. There are three sources of errors in conveying biblical meaning:

• lack of precision in the original language, such as terms underdeveloped to convey new concepts introduced by Christ
• lack of precision in modern language
• translation bias in converting the original language to the modern one.

Of these three sources of errors, the last introduces the largest error, and the biggest component of that error is liberal bias. Large reductions in this error can be attained simply by retranslating the KJV into modern English.^[1]

As of 2009, there is no fully conservative translation of the Bible which satisfies the following ten guidelines:^[2]

1. Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias
2. Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, “gender inclusive” language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity
3. Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level^[3]
4. Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop;^[4] defective translations use the word “comrade” three times as often as “volunteer”; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as “word”, “peace”, and “miracle”.
5. Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as “gamble” rather than “cast lots”;^[5] using modern political terms, such as “register” rather than “enroll” for the census
6. Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil.
7. Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning
8. Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story
9. Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels
10. Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word “Lord” rather than “Jehovah” or “Yahweh” or “Lord God.”

Thus, a project has begun among members of Conservapedia to translate the Bible in accordance with these principles. The translated Bible can be found here.

Now let’s be clear. If suddenly there appeared a “Liberalapedia” with their translation using a similar, but Liberal, approach in this way the objections would be exactly the same.

In previous posts I have talked about the difference between “exegesis” – “reading out of the text” and the dangers of “eisogesis” – “reading into the text”. This is far worse. This is actually changing the accurate  translation of the text itself.

I’ll give you an example tomorrow, but let’s  look at the basic presuppositions of “errors” found by Conservapedia.

• lack of precision in the original language, such as terms underdeveloped to convey new concepts introduced by Christ

Lack of precision? The Bible translations we have our the most rigorously studied and researched documents of any collection of works in human history.  If you want the definitive work on this in English read Bruce Metzger’s The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. It is not only a primary source of scholarship (that is readily accepted and used by Liberal and Conservative theologians alike), it is a great cure for late night insomnia.

next:

• lack of precision in modern language

The very reason we have so many translations is because there are variances in time sand places when it comes to the English language. But the meaning between the easier to read NIV does not alter the meaning that is found in the more literal (and therefore more “choppy”) translation like the NASB.  The very need for a translation to replace or stand alongside the KJV (1611) is how English has changed between 1611 and 2009. I have a fine library of English puritan literature from the 1700s, some in the original English of that time. It is damned hard to read!

To be sure, the etymological meaning of specific words from the best manuscripts can bring out richer meaning, especially when added to First Century cultural studies and archeological finds. This is not what these folks are talking about. They mean to ignore the plain meaning of these words in their original context and superimpose not only an interpretive grid over the texts to change their meaning, but actually mistranslate  words.

This is no different than our friendly, but textually misguided Jehovah’s Witnesses, who have also “changed” the meaning of the text to fit their beliefs (more on this in articles on what James Sire calls “Scripture Twisting”. )  [Note: and by the way, the next time Mormon Missionaries or JW's show up on your door, do NOT be mean to them or shine them on. It's a tough gig, and they are trying, in a sense, to "earn" their salvation. I invite them in for water or tea and offer to pray with them together (they can lead). Sure, as a former apologist I could rip their arguments to shreds, but what's the point of that? They more than not, really want God. I find that noble and at times brave.]

The  last “error” they state is the most absurd. For a moment I thought I was reading an article on The Onion.

translation bias in converting the original language to the modern one.

Of these three sources of errors, the last introduces the largest error, and the biggest component of that error is liberal bias. Large reductions in this error can be attained simply by retranslating the KJV into modern English.

Why in the heck would you EVER do a translation of the Bible from an earlier English version from 400 years ago when we have Greek manuscripts that we can use that are 1900 years old?

Now the King James Bible is a remarkable translation. Given the manuscripts they had at the time (1600s) compared to the massive number of manuscripts we now have (and which date back to within 30-50 years of the original autographs), you could argue that the translation they came up with is almost “miraculously” accurate.

It was assumed that with each new find (manuscripts dating back closer and closer to the First Century) that major errors would be found. Some “strains” of slight errors were found and could actually be traced as they ran their course through later copies. They were in consequential.

Anyway, not to bore you any further (or at least at a later time), the  question is still “why in the heck would you take a translation in English from 1611 and use that as the “Textus Receptus” (the starting point) for a new translation over Greek, Coptic and other early manuscripts much closer to the originals? That would be like choosing an English translation of Caeser’s Gallic Wars that was derived from 3 manuscripts written 800 years after the originals instead of starting over with the newly found  300 manuscript copies, written in Latin that dated back to within 100 years.

Are they NUTS?

The answer is pretty obvious. But in case you are as slow as these Conservapedia guys are, you would only opt for that if you could only read English, had no idea how to deal with latin, manuscript evidence or would be let within 2 miles of the manuscripts because they don’t recognize your credentials in Electronics from the University of Phoenix online.

Just to give you an example (and I will NEVER ask you to do this yourself unless you write me and really REALLY want to learn how).
Let’s say I am studying a passage that uses the word “peace”. In Greek that is “eirene”. Of course the context is important (that’s all the other words that happen to also be in the sentence, paragraph and chapter). But let’s say I want to know what the word “peace” means to a First Century Colossian when his village get’s a letter from Paul.

First, I go to an Interlinear. That is a word for word translation with the Greek words on top, the closest English word below. It reads very choppy because word order is different in Greek than English. The verb can be the last word of a very long sentence!

Some are not so bad…like the end of Colossians 1:2 “Grace    to you   and   peace   from   God   Father   of us.”

But let’s say you want to know what the word “peace” meant (and by the way, this group wants to strip that word out by some accounts) in that time and culture (and language). From there I have to get my Analytical Greek lexicon (as I am not brushed up on my Greek declensions and am lazy)  that will tell me the root word (as it may be in a plural, possessive…blah blah form here).

From there I can consult some Greek Commentaries (some written long before this idiotic culture war in America) for someone that has already done the work. But maybe they are tired of doing it because Paul almost ALWAYS uses this in his opening salutation.

So from there, knowing the root word in Greek I have to crack open the correct volume (one of ten) of the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (translated from the German) which is about $400. But I have them.

From there, I can look up “eirene” (sorry no Greek fonts)  and read the uses of it prior to New Testament times (including the Inter-testamental period), its usage in other documents of that exact time, its use in the early church times and even beyond. Pages and pages of information done by the best Greek scholars the world has ever seen (no one is racing to replace this set).

From this we learn interesting things that, while held in check to some extent (nuances), can help us gain a greater understanding of how those Colossians Gentiles would have understood Paul’s letter to them that we now call “scripture”.

For example, one core meaning of the word “eirene” was “right relationship in every sphere of life”. That is part of Paul’s wish for this young church, and for us as well.

The Bible, particularly the New Testament, has very little to say about government. The only “government” it is interested in is the “Kingdom of God” as outlined on the Sermon on the Mount and the other Gospels.

In a sense, theological Liberals have done the same thing with the “Jesus Seminar” which I object to on the same essential grounds. Even the term “The Jesus Seminar” is deeply ironic. It is an attempt to strip out the actual words of Jesus from the Gospels because they do not agree with the “Seminars” presuppositons (read opinions).

They don’t like what Jesus has to say any more than those at Conservapedia. In some ways The Jesus Seminar may be worse because they hide their agenda behind a veil of pseudo-scholarship. At least these guys are just plain idiots.

More tomorrow. Now I have to go re-write this as a journalist for Examiner.com, which is not as fun as this (but hey..thanks to YOUR readership there, I have made .43 cents now! Pass the word. Christmas is coming). It will be some time and I will need lots of readers before I can call Idiots “Idiots” there in Op-Ed pieces. So please do get people reading HERE daily.  Otherwise I cannot have any real fun. If I get a gazillion readers I can graduate to Mark Morford like status where I can call them even more accurate names (and in the original Greek!)

BakDon is in Timeout!

The "Buddy Christ" from Dogma.

Okay, I have been told by good sources that I am being too academic and my posts too long. I never argue with the general impression of folk who are regular readers. They are almost always right.

So, my apologies. I am trying.

There also seems to be some disconnect with how to comment. Not sure what to say about that. I get comments on Facebook (really good ones!). I guess it does not really matter, except others miss out on the gift of your thoughts and reflections.

Let me say one last thing before I end this, and start research on today’s posts in both places. I am a very private person when it comes to my personal life. Some of you know why. It really does not matter. But I am WIDE OPEN to criticism on what I write, or how I write, etc. It can only make me better.

This may not be usual, but as large a narcissist as I am I have almost no ego when it comes to how I present. It is supposed to be a gift and also a way for me to fulfill my own essential callings and gifts. That is what I get out of it and nothing more. I get to do what I do. So I will always appreciate your criticisms or requests.

Bono on the Psalms

In 1999, Penguin publishing asked Irish rocker, and lead man for U2, Bono to write the introduction to a new collection of the Psalms from the King James Bible. Just as surprisingly, Bono accepted the assignment with zeal and really managed as a poet and writer himself to nail it pretty good. The book is available from Amazon and other places.

The entire text:

Explaining faith is impossible…Vision over visibility … Instinct over intellect … A songwriter plays a chord with the faith that he will hear the next one in his head.

One of the writers of the psalms was a musician, a harp-player whose talents were required at ‘the palace’ as the only medicine that would still the demons of the moody and insecure King Saul of Israel; a thought that still inspires, if not quite explaining Marilyn singing for Kennedy, or the Spice Girls in the court of Prince Charles…

At age 12, I was a fan of David, he felt familiar … like a pop star could feel familiar. The words of the psalms were as poetic as they were religious and he was a star. A dramatic character, because before David could fulfill the prophecy and become the king of Israel, he had to take quite a beating. He was forced into exile and ended up in a cave in some no-name border town facing the collapse of his ego and abandonment by God. But this is where the soap opera got interesting, this is where David was said to have composed his first psalm – a blues. That’s what a lot of the psalms feel like to me, the blues. Man shouting at God – ‘My God, my God why hast thou forsaken me? Why art thou so far from helping me?’ (Psalm 22).

I hear echoes of this holy row when un-holy bluesman Robert Johnson howls ‘There’s a hellhound on my trail’ or Van Morrison sings ‘Sometimes I feel like a motherless child’. Texas Alexander mimics the psalms in ‘Justice Blues’: ‘I cried Lord my father, Lord eh Kingdom come. Send me back my woman, then thy will be done’. Humorous, sometimes blasphemous, the blues was backslidin’ music; but by its very opposition, flattered the subject of its perfect cousin Gospel.

Abandonment, displacement, is the stuff of my favourite psalms. The Psalter may be a font of gospel music, but for me it’s in his despair that the psalmist really reveals the nature of his special relationship with God. Honesty, even to the point of anger. ‘How long, Lord? Wilt thou hide thyself forever?’ (Psalm 89) or ‘Answer me when I call’ (Psalm 5).

Psalms and hymns were my first taste of inspirational music. I liked the words but I wasn’t sure about the tunes – with the exception of Psalm 23, ‘The Lord is my Shepherd’. I remember them as droned and chanted rather than sung. Still, in an odd way, they prepared me for the honesty of John Lennon, the baroque language of Bob Dylan and Leonard Cohen, the open throat of Al Green and Steve Wonder – when I hear these singers, I am reconnected to a part of me I have no explanation for … my ’soul’ I guess.

Words and music did for me what solid, even rigorous, religious argument could never do, they introduced me to God, not belief in God, more an experiental sense of GOD. Over art, literature, reason, the way into my spirit was a combination of words and music. As a result the Book of Psalms always felt open to me and led me to the poetry of Ecclesiastes, the Song of Solomon the book of John… My religion could not be fiction but it had to transcend facts. It could be mystical, but not mythical and definitely not ritual …

My mother was Protestant, my father Catholic; anywhere other than Ireland that would be unremarkable. The ‘Prods’ at that time had the better tunes and the Catholics had the better stage-gear. My mate Gavin Friday used to say: ‘Roman Catholicism is the Glamrock of religion’ with its candles and psychedelic colours … Cardinal blues, scarlets and purples, smoke bombs of incense and the ring of the little bell. The Prods were better at the bigger bells, they could afford them. In Ireland wealth and Protestantism went together; to have either, was to have collaborated with the enemy, i.e. Britain. This did not fly in our house.

After going to Mass at the top of the hill, in Finglas on the north side of Dublin, my father waited outside the little Church of Ireland chapel at the bottom of the hill, where my mother had brought her two sons …

I kept myself awake thinking of the clergyman’s daughter and let my eyes dive into the cinema of the stained glass. These Christian artisans had invented the movies … light projected through colour to tell their story. In the ’70s the story was ‘the Troubles’ and the Troubles came through the stained glass; with rocks thrown more in mischief than in anger, but the message was the same; the country was to be divided along sectarian lines. I had a foot in both camps, so my Goliath became religion itself; I began to see religion as the perversion of faith. As to the five smooth stones for the sling … I began to see God everywhere else. In girls, fun, music, justice but still – despite the lofty King James translation – the Scriptures.

I loved these stories for the basest reasons, not just the New Testament with its mind-altering concept that God might reveal himself as a baby born in straw poverty – but even the Old Testament. These were action movies, with some hardcore men and women … the car chases, the casualties, the blood and guts; there was very little kissing.

David was a star, the Elvis of the bible, if we can believe the chiseling of Michelangelo (check the face – but I still can’t figure out this most famous Jew’s foreskin). And unusually for such a ‘rock star’, with his lust for power, lust for women, lust for life, he had the humility of one who knew his gift worked harder than he ever would. He even danced naked in front of his troops … the biblical equivalent of the royal walkabout. David was definitely more performance artist than politician.

Anyway, I stopped going to churches and got myself into a different kind of religion. Don’t laugh, that’s what being in a rock ‘n’ roll band is, not pseudo-religion either … Show-business is Shamanism: Music is Worship; whether it’s worship of women or their designer, the world or its destroyer, whether it comes from that ancient place we call soul or simply the spinal cortex, whether the prayers are on fire with a dumb rage or dove-like desire … the smoke goes upwards … to God or something you replace God with … usually yourself.

Years ago, lost for words and forty minutes of recording time left before the end of our studio time, we were still looking for a song to close our third album, War. We wanted to put something explicitly spiritual on the record to balance the politics and the romance of it; like Bob Marley or Marvin Gaye would. We thought about the psalms … ‘Psalm 40′ … There was some squirming. We were a very ‘white’ rock group, and such plundering of the scriptures was taboo for a white rock group unless it was in the ’service of Satan’. Or worse, Goth.

‘Psalm 40′ is interesting in that it suggests a time in which grace will replace karma, and love replace the very strict laws of Moses (i.e. fulfil them). I love that thought. David, who committed some of the most selfish as well as selfless acts, was depending on it. That the scriptures are brim full of hustlers, murderers, cowards, adulterers and mercenaries used to shock me; now it is a source of great comfort.

‘40′ became the closing song at U2 shows and on hundreds of occasions, literally hundreds of thousands of people of every size and shape t-shirt have shouted back the refrain, pinched from ‘Psalm 6′: “‘How long’ (to sing this song)”. I had thought of it as a nagging question – pulling at the hem of an invisible deity whose presence we glimpse only when we act in love. How long … hunger? How long … hatred? How long until creation grows up at the chaos of its precocious, hell-bent adolescence has been discarded? I thought it odd that the vocalising of such questions could bring such comfort; to me too.

But to get back to David, it is not clear how many, if any, of these psalms David or his son Solomon really wrote. Some scholars suggest the royals never dampened their nibs and that there was a host of Holy Ghost writers … Who cares? I didn’t buy Leiber and Stoller … they were just his songwriters … I bought Elvis.

There are other excellent books on the Psalms. I  would point out the one by Walter Brueggemann (anything by Brueggemann is good..just a bit “thick, if you get my drift). Also several books are on “praying the Psalms” including a hermeneutics (biblical interpretation) expert  James Sire. These type of books point out the direct usefulness of the Psalms because the Psalms are filled not only with praises, but often bitter complaints, questioning, laments…the sort of prayers that often people are afraid to pray to God, but obviously need not be.

But nobody nails the collection of Psalms like Bono. David was the first “Elvis” and his reasoning is air-tight. He also  manages to deftly, but directly answer the question “head knowledge” versus experience of God.  The one can impress a friend over espresso, but only the latter can comfort your soul when you feel genuinely lost.

Next time you wish to rail at God, pick up the Psalms and find a good one. Whether the Psalmist is King David, or an anonymous writer…the language, anguish, anger, sadness, confusion, etc are things everyone can relate to. It will give you boldness in your prayers (hey…God knows anyway, right?)

Splashing or Scuba?

"The Trinity Being Koi" oil on canvas (20"x30") Christopher MacDonald

I was starting to find ways of making my long commentary on the book of Colossians available for free download here. Upon looking at it more carefully (I wrote it years ago) I realized it might be a bit frightening if it was thought that serious study of a biblical text was that lengthy.

It isn’t, or does not need to be. I wrote it as a teacher, poet and wanted to exhaust myself on the project.

The reality is the books of the Old and New Testament are amazing in that they are available enough for the youngest child to splash around in safely; yet of you wish to go deeper you can choose, skin-diving, scuba-diving, or nitrous-oxide mixture deep sea diving and never touch bottom.

It is unlike any other collection of writings I know of in this way. Even now, reviewing just the first few verses of Colossians, I see whole areas still wide open to explore.

Does that mean I do not have a basic and clear understanding of those verses now? No. I do. Does it mean that you by yourself or with a few friends could not also quickly come to that same basic and clear understanding? No. You can and if you want to, I will do my best to help you load up a simple toolbox to do just that (I know, I am mixing metaphors…sorry).

Splashing about

When kids get out in the water they love just splashing around, feeling the water… playing. Sometimes we can make study or reading of the Bible more complex than it really is. It’s unique qualities allow for both. This little video is not about the Bible, but it is about how the “learned” with their massive assumptions can often miss the simple points that a child can grasp.

Of course, it helps if that child is Albert Einstein, but still.

I do not think this little video is saying much about God’s existence. Rather it deals with, to some extend, the problem of God and evil.

Point here is that for adults a good translation (most are) of the Bible and perhaps a Bible Dictionary, can be enough to simple reading. The Bible dictionary will help answer some technical or cultural questions about things we know little about.

Having a Bible with extra wide margins can be good to write down questions or reflections.

Thomas MacDonnald skin diving in Maui

Skin-Diving

For anyone who regularly skin dives you have,  just by the equipment you have purchased or rented (biofins, a good mask, snorkel)  oriented yourself to go beneath the surface. As you float ot the top look down and breathing through your snorkel you have plenty of time to decide what you want to explore and estimate your best route there.  Your fins will allow for faster propulsion for greater depth, and your mask will allow for superior visibility. And, you can go down as many times as you like (within reason. Your only drawback is not being able to stay down for a much longer time for more detailed examination.

This would be akin to having a good commentary on the book in question. Each will have advantages. Some best on language, others on culture. Then there are those who have taken the time to topographically map the whole of the Pauline corpus (all of Paul’s writings) for a grander view of major themes. This can be as simple as looking at all of Paul’s opening “salutations” and what they mean, or were meant to mean.  Or maybe something as advanced as looking up all the passages where Paul talks about “life in Christ“.

Remember you have the advantage of having all of these letters, (or most, we know one of Paul’s to the Corinthians got lost because he mentions it). While it is true that the letters to Colossae, Philemon and Ephesians probably made the “rounds to several townships” those who had Colossians in their possessions had no idea of what Paul had written Rome.

You do.

All for know. Part two later. Let me just say, both of the above are great (splashing and skin-diving). I am not suggesting everyone become a Bible scholar. And your pastors have been trained to deal with deeper issues (they have scuba equipment for your benefit).

What I am suggesting is that you have many options open to you. If someone gives you an interpretation of a passage or passages that seem bogus, they may well be. In the book of Acts the church members of Berea were called “more noble” because  they compared what itinerant teachers were passing off as truth. questioning (respectfully) is a very good thing.

My last though this morning is about how we often do “Bible study”. I think I have a new model, or if not new, perhaps a very old one that should be revisited.

CSI Palestine

Or, “The Prostitute Who Loved Jesus”.

It is a moving scene in  Jesus of Nazareth when Mary Magdalene (in the biblical story we do not know who the woman is) comes to Jesus and breaks the alabaster vial of perfume and anoints his feet.

Of all the “Jesus” movies I think this one the best (Zeffirelli’s). I mean it is really impossible for any actor to portray Jesus. He’s just too big. And if you play him very human (Like DeFoe in The last Temptation of Christ, Jesus comes off as a sniveling loser) or very Divine (like Robert Powell in Jesus of Nazareth where he comes off like he is untouched and sort of hovering above everything like a Dyson vacuum cleaner in a white robe strangely detached). Other depictions are no better. They each catch a “side” of Jesus as revealed in the Gospels, but seem to be missing other crucial aspects (perhaps that is why there are four Gospels. though three of them are very much alike).

Well I was asked to actually preach two Sundays in a row at a church that had lost it’s pastor. I had not preached in, well a very long time. I am a writer and teacher, not a preacher. But I agreed. They gave me two passages. One was Luke 7, the other one I have repressed because I did a horrible job the following week (which is why I am back to writing and teaching).

There really is nothing like being given 30 minutes to preach a passage from the Bible and just blowing it.  As I left the building (quickly) I looked at the Wademan and he murmured “you sucked dude.”

True.

Anyway, the week before I did not suck but it was not because of my speaking ability. It  was the text and how it had come alive for me and would for others.

I’ll walk you through this process  because it is instructive.

I read the passage a number of times to get a general sense. I made note of questions I had about the dinner in question. What would they have probably served? Who would have sat where? What customs would be observed? Why does Luke note it is an “alabaster vial” and what kind of perfumes did they have and use? Why was the prostitute allowed in? Did she know others in the room? What was Simon’s motive in inviting Jesus? Etc.

Basically, I wanted to be inside the room and SEE it happening very much like a forensics expert tries to piece together the events of a crime or incident. I started to ask forensic questions just like Goren does on Law & Order CI or Grissom does in CSI. What does the physical evidence in the room tell us about the events?

Exhibit One: The Perfume

I went to the local Junior College library and looked up every book I could find on ancient perfume bottles and perfumes. I learned that  unlike our modern perfumes, these perfumes lost their scent very quickly. They were most often herbs ground up in oil and sealed in a vial of alabaster with wax or other substances that would effectively seal the scent from the air.

One such alabaster vial, a sealed vial, was recovered from the area of the Dead Sea. Now if that alabaster vial had been filled with Brut cologne, seal or no seal, 2,000 years later it would still be potent. In this case, though sealed, there was no scent. That a major difference.

So a vial of perfume in the First Century might last a few weeks if properly cared for, and would be very expensive.

What was it used for?  As we know, this woman (from the text) was a prostitute. It would seem logical that it was used not as much to allure men as to simply mask the smell of other men and sex.  Keep that in mind.

Exhibit Two: The table setting

Further research, not from Bible commentaries (though they are invaluable), but simple historical information on Middle Eastern customs for dinner gatherings revealed even more. Simon, as a Pharisee would be a man of some means and a layout of the typical eating or dining room was described and illustrated in a way that makes the picture here (to the left) patently absurd.

First, they “reclined at table” meaning they lay down low on pillows with a low table. If you have not been to an authentic Persian restaurant GO! It is so much fun and you lay on pillows and eat all the food with your hands with ritual rosewater washings  in between courses. [note: In San Francisco, no place is better than El Mansour at 33rd and Clement].

You eat at long tables about two feet above the floor.  This is why, in the Bible it often says they were “reclining at table”.

I learned that there would most probably be three tables: the head table nearest the kitchen for fastest service; a second running longways to the side, then a third table at the far end facing the head table. The primary guests would be at table one; the next most important at the side table and the least important (if any) at the far table.

We can assume from Jesus’ own words in verses 44-46 where he notes that upon entering Simon the Pharisee’s house he was not (as a Rabbi) afforded the customary washings, a kiss of greeting, an anointing of oil upon the head, all of which would be common custom and a sign of respect and welcome to an invited Rabbi.

Jesus Himself notes that he has been “dissed”. Given such, which table do you think Jesus was instructed to recline at? While it cannot be proven, we can infer with some confidence that Jesus would be at the third table farthest from the host, yet still facing him as he reclined for the meal.

Read the passage again placing yourself in the room. The smell of the food, candles, loud talking, Jesus being “dealt with” like a curiosity and not an honored guest.

Exhibit Three: The location of the Woman

If Jesus is reclining at any of the tables, the woman is behind him, breaking the seal of  the  alabaster vial and pouring out the precious perfume on Jesus’ feet then letting her hair down she cleaned His feet with her tears and with her own long hair.

Note, she is behind him and farthest away from Simon the Pharisee.

This painting is not as bad as the previous one (where you expect George Washington to walk in and sit down). It’s just that it gives Jesus way too much prominence. That and  he is at the head table (on the left). Think of a darker more spread out scene with Simon and friends at the big left ended table, the center table longer and Jesus at the far end table with the woman behind him in somewhat darkness.

All the evidence from this time period paints such a forensic picture and not a romanticized or spiritualized one.

Exhibit Four: The scandalous actions of the woman.

In Middle Eastern culture, for a woman to let down her hair was the equivalent of her exposing her breasts.

We know that her reputation was well noted (v. 39) in town. It is not a stretch (I think) that some of the guests at the table that night had also been guests are her place of business.

Thus, her anointing the feet of Jesus may have seemed odd to them, but her letting down her hair would indicate a desire to be sexual with the Rabbi whether true or not. Thus Simon reasons within his own mind “If Jesus were a prophet he would know that the woman touching him is a sinner!”

Well there you have it except perhaps the menu. I did some research and actually once taught this passage by preparing a simple Middle Eastern dinner of spicy lentil soup over fresh spinach, fruits, bowls of nuts and wine. The participants lay on pillows and ate with their hands. I’m not sure how helpful it was, but it did make for a more enjoyable “Bible study”?

Now that you have some of the forensic evidence and background, I want to switch over to SPOKE. The Grand Book is about learning how to study the Bible. Hopefully some of this has been helpful. SPOKE is for what Jesus actually does and seeing that in an intimate way. If you care to come along you may be as surprised as I was after I gathered all this forensic “data”.

A Quick (and Moving) Reminder

Biblical study can seem like arduous work. I suppose Archaeologists feel the same way until they come across some real physical finds in the earth they are sifting and digging through. It is very much the same. Such study can bring a “physicality” to the texts we read that a cursory reading may not.

Here is a great example done by Mark Driscoll of Seattle’s Mars Hill Church.(I got this from Matt Bell’s FB).

Sometimes the whole meaning of a passage or part of a narrative can turn on just a bit more information. Was the sponge dipped in sour wine/vinegar a sign of compassion or derision? There is no way of “proving” either, but given Mark’s research the evidence would point more strongly to the latter.

Later today, Luke 7 and a similar discovery that shocked me. I shall labor to keep it short. If in doing so I leave stuff out? Just ask.

The Bible in Youtubeland

That beard is definitely fake.

This blog is a-political (for an explanation see the above tab “The Grand Book” and go down to the section called “Pitfalls”)

But sometimes it is educational to look at how people massacre scriptures in order to try and prove a point they already believe.  This is called “eisogesis” which simply means “reading into the text” (eiso= “into” working off of exegesis, which means to explain “out” of the text.). In simple terms:

Eisogesis – very very  bad

Exegesis – pretty good and cool

Now the lengths that people and organizations will go to in their attempt to Eisogete a passage to their liking is dazzling. Take a look at this one “proving” Barack Obama is the Anti-Christ and that Jesus named him specifically in the Gospel of Luke.

I originally was sent the video by a brother in the faith who wanted my opinion from a linguistic point of view. I admit…the argument made in the video was so convoluted that it took my a few hours to break down all the fallacies and gross errors of interpretation. I wrote, in detail, to my friend and he received it quite well (he still cannot stand Obama, but he no longer feels the need to think he is the anti-christ).

I will share with you snippets of what I wrote only because another guy already did the exact same work…on a video that has both the original Eisogesis and twisting of the passages by the orginal guy AND has well reasoned and firmly coherent interpretation practices that are instructive.

I also like his attitude. He doesn’t get mad…he is actually quite gracious…he just tells the truth. Here it is:

That is more than enough really so feel free to stop here. BUT, if you wish to read my own debunking of this sad affair months ago, you will see some of the same arguments along with some that Matt Bell did not have time or inclination to bother with.

[This, perhaps,  qualifies as "too much time on the Internet"]

Letter:

Well, dear friend and brother…the argument from the video  is so convoluted one hardly knows where to begin. Let me see if I can quickly cut through it then follow with longer comments.

1) Attempting to a) read Luke 10:18 utterly out of context (read the whole chapter), then b) infer back to two words that have a straight forward reading in the New Testament Greek text; c) citing Jesus’  speaking in Aramaic then rendering that through a sister language where the meanings are different is beyond ….hmnnn…well it is ingenious!  But it  has nothing to do with the Bible.

2) So, having ignored the Greek text, and reverting to Hebrew by more the spurious means, let’s have a look at the derivations (in Hebrew) of Strongs #1299 via an even more conservative and scholarly work  The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (my Hebrew library is significantly updated from when Augustus Strong did his truly remarkable work. The Hebrew word has several derivations.

The word for “Lightening” is “baraq” and is used throughout the Old Testament both for Yahweh’s divine presence (texts too numerous to site) and also for the show of opposition by Baal, the Cannanite god.

The more interesting derivation is right next to it: “Barak” an actual name of a biblical figure. Reading Hebrews 11 you will see that Barak is listed in the “Heroes of Faith” right alongside Samson, Gideon, Jephthah, David, Samuel and the Prophets (including Isaiah one would think)!

3) Now for someone to suggest that because the Hebrew name of a Hero of Faith was a foreshadowing of Barack Obama would be as ludicrous and as bad an interpretation as the work of these folks. It would make basically the same errors in interpretation.

Now some suggestions. First I imagine you remember that in the 80s I was a researcher and de-bunker of Cults and “Isms”. As such, dealing with what James Sire called “Scripture Twisting” was a daily grind. It was amazing both how gullible people were and how much muddy thinking went into  ideas/formulas like: “Well IF this is true, and then we suppose that, then read this other thing in another light and ignore the plain meaning of the text it all equals Absolute Truth!

I suggest you find and read Sire’s book (InterVaristy Press..I think). [ Note, or get the book that Matt Bell mentions in his video.]

Also, give up tiny “proof-texting”.  Jesus get’s to do it, and Paul or John etc…we suck at it because we start piecing things together out of context. Kind of like trying to construct a car using ford truck parts, motorcycle parts, baking goods and some donated organs.

Study the passage at hand and get a good Greek Commentary! Stay in the text and resist the temptation to see what you want in it…go where it goes.

NOTES:

It would be different if the context of Luke was Jesus teaching about the Anti-Christ directly (instead of about immediate demon-possession and other related matters; and if Jesus had come out and said something (I suppose..because he did not) “The Name of the Anti-Christ will be…”

As it stands this video does violence to the text in question.

It is this text (the New Testament Greek text) that the Church abides by and not conjecture of what it “might” have said (also there are wide differences between Hebrew and Aramaic. The wikipedia article from the offensive video (before it is chopped up to mean something else) says “Aramaic is a part of the Northwest Semitic group of languages, which also includes the Canaanite languages such as Hebrew and Phoenician.” The article elsewhere notes that “Aramaic’s long history and diverse and widespread use has led to the development of many divergent varieties which are sometimes treated as dialects. Thus, there is no one Aramaic language, but each time and place has had its own variety” (italics mine). It also notes that Aramaic could “likely” have been the spoken tongue of Jesus (which most scholars except).

There are notable exceptions in the New Testament where Jesus’ words are recorded in Aramaic …then the writer is careful to translate the meaning into Greek (one obvious example is “My God, My God, Why have You forsaken me?”).

So the Luke passage is meant to be interpreted in context and in the Greek.

Also note that it is Satan referred to in Luke 10:18. No mention of the Anti-Christ or of naming him…Nothing.

Final note: it is crap (and it is crap) like this that gets Christians painted as the Lunatic Fringe. You wanna wear that moniker with honor? Let it be because you profess Jesus as risen from the dead…or “Him crucified”. Let people write you off for that…but not because you bought some silly argument about an American politician being the Antichrist.

Grace and peace
Mac

The Shack, Liberty and Interpretation.

I posted at SPOKE earlier this a.m. using mostly the right hemisphere of my brain. You know we are (I am assuming) given both for a reason and reasoning in some integrating way.

We live in a world dominated by dualistic thinking. Thus we are trained to look for up/down, yes/no, 0/1, right/wrong, good/bad, and PC/Mac ways of thinking and distinguishing.

This is not a bad thing at all, and has been very helpful in science and most every other discipline. But often the right side of the brain is left a tad atrophied or under appreciated (except perhaps in the area of music as I am currently listening to Robert Plant and Alison Krauss singing Killing the Blues…lovely) . So, my attempt at talking about The Shack this a.m. on SPOKE was to hit a more personal, intuitive note. Another aspect of the right brain is it tends to see the bigger picture, where the left brain tends to break things into little pieces.

So, having said that, this is the left brain’s turn.

Much of Biblical “hermeneutics” (interpretation) is very scientific, logical, exacting and detail-oriented. The notion that the Bible can be “interpreted any way you like” is patently false. That you may choose to ignore or reinterpret it’s words, wrench passages out of context, or “make it prove” anything you like is certainly true. But it is also dishonest, duplicitous, dumb and a bunch of other D-words.

The real joy of exploring biblical texts is allowing them to take you where THEY wish to go. In this way, I suppose it is like a good scientist trying to discover “what is” and how things work…come what may.

I was once teaching a Gospel of John class and I had done my homework in the text. I have a weird way of teaching. I roam and work conversationally. Well at one point my friend (and at the time “patowan”) John Paul spoke up and said “but what about verse 3 where it says…”

I stopped and did the “math”. I had missed it utterly and it turned the passage on a dime.

“Um,…er…well John ..haha…that just kinda changes everything..” I laughed. And on we went to explore in a new direction.

Well, on an intuitive level I appreciate what the author (Wm. Paul Young) is trying to do…and if this was billed as a book of “revelation” it would be at great odds with biblical literature on a number of issues we shall discuss. But as fiction, there is nothing wrong with exploring all number of ideas. I myself have a book of short stories that do similarly. Many move beyond death in the afterlife. I wouldn’t for a minute say any of them was accurate given what little is revealed about the afterlife in the Bible. But it’s a nice way to ask “what if”s.

First, remember I am only on page 125, so I am just halfway through.

Lesson: There is a decided difference between “stated theology” and “inferred” theology. Stated theology is just that “God is Spirit and those who worship Him must worship in Spirit and in Truth.”  Those are statements about God.

The “Trinity” on the other hand is NOT a piece  of stated theology. Nowhere in the Old or New Testaments will you find a statement about the Trinity or even the term. Our Jehovah’s Witness  and Mormon friends make great sport of this with average Christians who do not study their Bible, or who have not been taught to study.

The Trinity is “inferred”. It is obvious from a clear reading of various texts, both old and new, that the “Father” is God; the “Son” is God; and the “Spirit” is God. It is equally clear that there is only “ONE God”.

Now if God was a mathematical equation or within the confines of creation this would be a problem. Being as it is the very nature of God, it is not such a jump. I mean, as Buechner suggests, go to the beach and try explaining to  “a little necked clam what it means to be human”.  For that matter, try explaining it to another human including yourself.

Get my point?

The thing about “Inferential Theology” is “how big is the inferential jump”?

Serious scholars are gonna have legitimate problems with all three members of the Trinity being “incarnate” (having a tangible body) and having “limitations” (self-imposed). I think allowing the various passages that would be pertinent (once read and understood in their own context) as regards Jesus would support such an idea…for Jesus.

Others will have problems with “Papa” or the “Father” being portrayed as a Black woman. One wonders if they would have the same problem if he was depicted as an older white man?

I did sneak a peak at Mark Driscoll’s (of Seattle’s Mars Hill Church) video on The Shack. He didn’t like it  at all. I think he would place it in the camp of “heretical”. Well, I suppose if it was issued like the latest book by Bishop Spong, or others, who are selling their wares as straight theology, he might be able to make a case. As such, just as “context is everything” with biblical texts…so they are with literary texts.

That is all I can say for now. A good scholar/reader always takes in all the information before evaluation. Hopefully a level of real openness is there and the texts at hand are not pre-judged.

In future articles you will see that these same ideas are not any different from a sane approach to interpreting passages, or whole “books” of the Bible. All things need to be welcome to the table: literary style, historical situation, language, social norms, political situations, inter-personal dynamics…so many that help us “excavate” what we have been blessed with.

I was given an autographed copy of Christopher Moore’s  Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ’s Childhood Pal . Moore inscribed it “To Mac, Blessed are the “Fxxxkups for they shall inherit the Earth. Best, Christopher Moore”.

I read the book not expecting much, but it was, in fact, delightful. I was particularly surprised by the attention to detail on Jewish customs and the whole situation during the First Century in Palestine. I wrote him as much and we corresponded a bit (he was living in Hawaii at the time and is now in Paris. You can follow his very funny adventures here) .

Now some (not all by any stretch)  “inferences” that Moore made in Lamb were HUGE leaps (like leaping from Hawaii to Paris without a plane). And that is the rub.

When it comes to the “Trinity” The evidence from the biblical records is that (well see above). There is absolutely NO conjecture on HOW this nature of God works. You can see it in action in various passages, but not a single author of any Old or New Testament book even ettempts to explain it…not even an analogy. It just IS.

Which means that, surprise of surprises, some things end in the realm of “mystery” at least to us. I imagine that God understands God’s own nature quite well. Probably thinks the notion of “Trinity” is quaint and a respectful attempt at approximate.

Well off to bed soon…after a call to my son.