There is so much of interest in the world, problems to solve, issues to discourse, but they are also easy distractions, and it is often these days that they are even unaccessible to most, who are upon the periphery of conversations and things in which they are not included, rather only watching, hearing, examining, judging, but in which they really have no part.

And furthermore, why are we so interested? With hyperparticipation through millions of critics, there is little room for true discourse, for thinking. It is for good reason the congress has limits to size, or is intended to have, for the purpose that real debate might occur, though in reality no real critical engagement seems to ever grace that floor anymore: especially with the ruling party, notorious for its hatred of criticism and examination.

Yet it’s no help that one party or the other rules at a time, nor that when they are equally empowered there is more dogmatism and ideals than reason. The same situation is pervasive, however, throughout, it appears, in all reaches of our society. In every discipline, in every sect of modern civil life, throughout America, and perhaps also throughout Europe where the ability of speech is now feared lost.

So why, oh why, are we even piqued to want to discourse in an uncritical society? Why care with so many uninteracting opinions unconsidered and speaking as if mere blurbing is desired so as to somehow matter, though it is likely insignificant?

The real point, though, is that it is too easy to be distracted with the things of this world, and I must admit I need mortify my own, incessant, wand’ring interest, and keep it foremost on heavenly things.

¹ Happy the man^a
who walketh not in the counsel of the wicked,
and standeth not in the way of sinners,
and sitteth not in the seat of scorners.
²But in the law of YWHW is his delight,
and in His law he meditateth night and day.^b
3And he [is^c] as a tree planted by rivulets^d of water,
that beareth his fruit in its season,
and its leaf ^efadeth not,
and all he doth flourisheth^f.
⁴ Not so the wicked, but as chaff the wind driveth away.
⁵Therefore the wicked standeth not in the judgment,
nor sinners in the ^gcongregation of the righteous
⁶For YHWH knoweth the way of the righteous,
but the way of the wicked is lost.

^a alt., “Oh the happiness of the man”
^b need to check if “day and night” would be better or not.
^c see nt. (Darby) here: same reason for “Happy the man” rather than “Happy is…”.
^d de, YLT.
^e alt., doth not fade
^f alt., prospereth
^g alt., assemblly

The channel is obsessed with things like aliens. It does constantly present misinformation: like they’ve done no real research and checking. It could be worse, they could be as the wider mass media and pretense to present information legit, rather than spin: those avenues like to cite their procedure, professional guidelines, etc., while they simultaneously source terrorists’ propaganda.

But as for quoting “experts” and “scholars” (which often are not, and often which are little more than selling snakes), it is more heinous: it goes for the purveyors of nonsense, whatever is fringe, and gives them pulpit to sell their goods to the unsuspecting who love such.

I have never seen a program by the channel I didn’t like, that didn’t make by blood boil at the dung it presents as historical to its audiences: the dubiousness and irresponsibility leaves me in disgust.

And of course it chooses topics that will pique interest: aliens, the Bible, theories about unsubstantiated ancient myths, atlantis, conspiracy theories, etc..

I wouldn’t wish to disparage people of practically any source, in general, if they are warned and learned to use sources critically, but I must say, the History channel, in my experience, has never been anything but hack programming.

Originally, (that is, on the blogspot version), it was due to wanting something somewhat relaxing to the eyes: dark text on white paper can be wearying: I think the opposite can actually be alleviating of that.

I was thinking, however, of changing the color schemes, as currently I’m thinking on changing-up the links, was thinking of the colors, and some other things. I decided to keep the colors darker like this, though. That is due to wanting to impart a serious sense: gravity. I know the black may seem somber, but these truly are very dark times indeed for the Christian: good thing Christ is light, and that we’re to shine, be lights, as well.

Thus I hope that my words be as salt, and as light: things we normally associate with “white”, as well as purity, and etc.. So it is fitting, in a symbolic sense, to keep the colors a little graver, even if it might make someone wonder. With all the light-hearted approach to so much so important these days, I think it’s fitting to demonstrate both mourning for the sake of brethren, as well as joy (again, dark, and light).

There are several purposes for my blog. One is it’s something of a central repository-lite for materials I may need to access from various locations. Not only has it material visible to the public, but it has materials also hidden (i.e. unpublished) that I only can access so long as the service providers keep-up the passworded account schemes used widely across the WWW, including for blog services. : )

The other, however, is to take and try to form those resources into a hub of sorts, if a simple and plain one, some of those thoughts, etc., into something edifying for my brethren out there. Not that I think I have this important or might voice or anything, but rather I hope that on the odd chance some small thought I have might be of help to others, that they’ll be led across this site: even if only transiently.

That said, I’m something of an essayist more than a journaler: I write and re-write things over and over. I have things stashed all over on paper, on google docs, on this blog, etc.: hundreds of blog posts unpublished. I think I really should journal more often, but I have over time learned I often have hated my own writing. A few years back a friend said, when we’d discuss the Bible, that he didn’t want to say much, or really write on it, until he read it. I’ve somewhat taken a similar stance on writing thoughts: before really committing much to paper–though I have stuff committed to writing electronically all over–I want to really get some experience, redact my own thoughts as well as writing, search the Scriptures, take-up and read them, etc.. I do actually write quite a bit on paper, at least sometimes: in the margins of books.

Anyway, this should be interesting: I’m trying to keep synced blogs both on Blogger by Goodle and WordPress by WordPress.com, the latter something I wanted to try-out, but decided not to migrate to completely, but really like for its Dashboard features.

Anyway, wherever you see this from, my Blogger blog is here,
aguyblog.blogspot.com

and my WordPress blog is here,
aguyblog.wordpress.com

Though now I just wonder if there’s any way I can sync the comments between the two locations. I love Blogger’s simplicity and easy flexibility, so personally prefer any comments to be left there, if I might so ask for that. : )

This is one of my favorite quotes on global warming, by the way:

I am not saying that the warming does not cause problems. Obviously it does. Obviously we should be trying to understand it better. I am saying that the problems are grossly exaggerated. They take away money and attention from other problems that are more urgent and more important, such as poverty and infectious disease and public education and public health, and the preservation of living creatures on land and in the oceans, not to mention easy problems such as the timely construction of adequate dikes around the city of New Orleans.(http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html)

If you want to watch, or start at, a certain chunk:
Part 1.__Part 2.__Part 3.__Part 4.
Part 5.__Part 6.__Part 7.__Part 8.
Part 9.__Part 10.__Part 11.__Part 12.

[terminate post for now...]

Some appropriate labels:
Doctrine, Dogma, False Doctrine, Heresy, Heretics, Heterodoxy, Subjectivism, Relativism, nonjudgmentalism, Doubters, False Brethren, Discernment, Church, Ecclesiology, Mysticism, Catholicism, Another Gospel, New Age, ideamen, Arrogance, he that hath a dream, wolves,

–simultaneously stretching and yawning in one act.

We deny, for instance, Mormons the label “Christian” because we do believe in propositional truths, that terms are defined, that meaning is sure: Thus by “Christ” we mean someone different from who they describe, for instance.

But something else is troubling me. What about defining “soteriology”? Now, I know many may not know that term, so I’ll put its definition simply: “about how to be saved”, or “about salvation”. With such a large landscape of those eager to get the word out about “Jesus” (define it) and so the world may here “how you can be saved” (define salvation), that should be near and dear to the heart.

Obviously this simple essential should be easily defined from Scripture, and held as one truth, one meaning, among all Christians, right? It also involves other components of consideration:

Theology: about God.
Christology: about Christ.
Anthropology: about Man.
etc.

And these, in turn, have other components that go by other fancy, but very useful, facilitating terms. Now, however, we turn to the situation: in reality, there’s a wide disparity of believe in regards all these areas: even among the group that calls itself “evangelical”.

Normally, in the event of diversity of beliefs, we should all be able to approach scripture together, strive after the same mind as commanded, contend for the faith, and conform to God’s word in all these matters, so that we may, as Paul commanded, “speak the same thing”. Not by just adopting this or that position just because, to present a united front that really isn’t there in the soul of those professing it, which would be dishonest, right? After all, Colossians tells us we’re to learn and come to a true/right/accurate knowledge of God (see the NASB’s marginal notes on “knowledge”, and also you might cf. the notes from the commentary of Jamiesson-Fausset-Brown, available online).

Yet, this pretensious political front is exactly what has happened: “Statement of Belief” you will find at Church after Church, repeating practically the same terms, but all vague: leaving the definitions up for grabs to all who adopt them, like diplomatic documents forged not out of unity of the mind, but by avoiding particulars allowing anyone they want to sign it: a political front, but no true, essential, spiritual and doctrinal unity. (Yes, “doctrine” can be applied to the world’s affairs: the declarations made by the world are also doctrines, that is, doctrines, dogmas, undergird and are implied by such docs, for example, as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: there are ideas behind, imbued in, represented and expressed by such documents.)

What has become of the highly visible, preaching-itself, “Christianity”? It’s motto is “Unity in Diversity”: antithetical to biblical teaching; the same is the motto of the Bahai religion, for Indian Society (anything but united with its demeaning and wicked caste system), for practically every major socio-liberal organization on earth today. The old Christian application of that motto?

Unity despite various backgrounds.

A unity of origins, not beliefs, not opinions (the definition of “heresies”). It was once believed that the word dictated Christian belief/doctrine and practice, and was applicable and powerful for every area of life, inward and displayed (outward). Today these are speciously acknowledged, but implicitly and practically denied. It is not convenient: if we exegete Scripture accurately (draw teaching out of it, rather than using it at our own convenience, through sound hermeneutics) it is not so accomodating to modern liberal ideals of social justice and dogma; it is not so sentimental and fluffy: it neither castes humanity in the light of a poor victim of its own sin, nor God as one who is desperately awaiting the permission of those poor murders, adulterers, harlots, coveters, self-lovers, and so on, to come upon them with sweeping gushy love; it does not speak our “heart language”; nor fail to dare confronting almost every modern, well-beloved/dear, notion and pillar of the modern mind.

It does not present itself as to be desired in order to obtain intellectual and emotional fulfillment; a loving and wonderful, stronger, united family (actually Jesus warns He casts division into families); it does not promise anything but hardship, persecution, and suffering for Christ’s sake (“tribulations”). It does not downplay any of its truths as non-essentials, as if the love of God which Jesus says is evidenced by obedience, involves only assent to what is deemed by the modern so-called Christian as “essentials” because they are seen as the bare minimums required for genuine salvation, though Scripture would contend the Christian will grow in the knowledge of the Lord and be brought into conformity, rather than stagnating and protesting further teaching when it comes to challenge what they hold dear, require what brings discomfort, ridicule, humiliation, and suffering.

Today wolves teach we must “make Christ attractive”, and methods to “show how cool it is to be a Christian”. Gone is the humble and unnoticed Christian who by virtue brings hatred upon him or herself despite being upstanding: being the stench of death so that without any prompting, the weight of damp heat the dislike is so intense, that even the unbeliever’s smile and manners can’t hide their seething dislike. Gone are the days that without trying to provoke anyone, the Christian yet brought upon himself persecution, merely by purity, in action, and profession: these days being provocative is seen as a virtue to “evangelize”, while the biblical condemnation of needless offense of anyone is thrown under the bus (with Jesus) for not drawing and keeping large enough crowds. “Take this ordinary life”, they sing to God, as if He is to be commanded, as dissatisfied and ungrateful as the world-in-general, evidencing their hatred for Paul’s teaching to “remain in your present condition” (that of where one was found and saved), and to pray for the rulers “that we may lead a tranquil (or, peaceable) and quiet life in all godliness (or, piety) and gravity (or, dignity)” (1 Tim 2:2).

Rare is the humble and contrite spirit who serves the Lord with joy even when burdened with suffering, while common nowadays is the unending multitude that has no joy unless through another conference, another “Christian” concert (groups that avoid God’s and Christ’s name, and “Christianese” do to try to attract unbelieving audience…and evidence their shame, not proclamation, of Christ: often evidenced when they actually start talking about it, and preach other doctrines and gospels foreign to Scripture), or event, another “exciting” undertaking.

How awful to have millions upon millions of mouths crying “Jesus”, and so few who know the one of which the Bible is talking about, at least, that is, from what we can see by comparing all this to Scripture.

I wish, that rather than trying to correct it all, that truly Christian believers would give-up their greeting of those who hold to other gospels and christs, and do as the word commands: separate, that they be not partakers, nor lend any legitimacy to the false prophets, goats, deceived, and so forth: let them hear our preaching of the truth from without, and if God so wills, be converted, and also therefore urged themselves to come out from among them.

In the Gospel of John the translator often inserts “leaders of” in front of “the Jews” when John fails to do so ^{source: see footnote 1}

I just want to ask this commentator, How arrogant are you? If John didn’t insert “leaders of” that should indicate to you HE DIDN’T “fail” to do so.

Now back to everyone else. The NT doesn’t “fail” not to insert “Leaders of”. Even the OT foretells the Messiah’s rejection, that He will be “cut off”: it indicates both the people and general, and the “builders” (religious authorities) will not accept him. Among the politically correct, but more especially among modern Judaizers and the mixed-up with them, there’s this idea that the Jews were fine and dandy (in fact, among Messianic Jews it seems there are plenty who think the same still of unbelieving Jews–”knowing” so and so in one’s family had to be okay because of how nice, pious, or how much they were loved by the new Messianic: this is mocking and denying Christ).

When Jesus speaks to Jerusalem, he does not say “Oh leaders of Jerusalem”, but “Jerusalem”, and goes on to say it’s the city that murders the prophets. The people rejected him: not when they wanted to make Him king, but when He told them they must believe, eat His blood, drink His flesh, etc., He was not use to their earthly ambitions, as Jesus remains among Jews for their ambitions for Israel.

And we needn’t forget, the NT authors, minus Luke & Acts, are written by…you guessed it: Jews. The OT prophets, Jews: condemn the Jews (whenever they reject the prophets). The NT prophets, Jews: condemn the Jews (when they reject the prophets, which includes Jesus and his messengers–the literal translation of “apostles”). If one wants the most anti- faithless-semitic book: read either the old or new testament.

We know, from both the Bible and corroborating history from without it, that the Jews became zealous persecutors of the Messianic strain of early first century Judaism: even seeking them across the Roman Empire to return them before the religious authorities, and then (illegally–Rome had removed this authority from Israel, “the sceptor” to kill) stone them. The NT’s condemnation of this unbelieving strain of Judaism is no accident: not in the least John’s gospel, which is though to be written for an Alexandrian community of Messianic Jews!

Did Paul fail to qualify that the unbelieving Jews were a “synagogue of Satan”? No. He did not go on to say this synagogue was composed of only leaders. The OT condemns (utterly) anyone who rejects any true prophet of God. The NT even quotes that verse, and polemically, unapologetically, affirms Jesus is Messiah, Prophet, King-Priest, Savior, God.

Amen.

On this subject, from Michael Marlowe’s review on the CEV, “the most sensitive” translation^{source: see footnote 2} for Jews:

__The CEV also makes an attempt to tone down the anti-Judaism of the New Testament by avoiding the word “Jews” wherever it is used in reference to opponents of Jesus. In a 1993 article David G. Burke, the director of the ABS translation program, says that the purpose of this was to combat anti-semitism; and so instead of “Jews” they give “the people” or “the religious leaders.” In his article Burke acknowledges that the use of the expression “the Jews” in the New Testament is significant in that it “carries a bias that was born of the increasingly heated struggle for credibility between two strains of first century Judaism,” but as a translator he cares more about “its effect on the poorly informed modern reader” than about accurate translation of the phrase:

__The problem is not how well the English locution reflects the Greek text or the escalating polemical realities of the first century situation, but rather its effect on the (poorly informed) modern reader. Few modern readers are equipped to sort out that “the Jews” opposing Jesus and the Jesus movement are in many cases just other Jews who happen not to have accepted Jesus’s identity as Messiah—whether these are individuals, groups, local leaders, or religious or political authorities. Given the way the overall picture is painted, it is difficult for the modern reader to think this through in terms of real-life ambiguities that would have applied then as now; that is, to consider that many of these “enemies” may have been acting, in the events of the early (pre-synagogue expulsion) years, in order to be responsible and faithful to the tradition as they understood it by resisting and being suspicious of what they may have perceived as another of those Messiah claimants that get everyone worked up then fade away. ⁽³⁾

__Burke’s apology for those who “happen not to have accepted Jesus’ identity as Messiah” is understandable in the context of a modern inter-faith dialogue, but it must be said that this muffling of the antagonistic language of the New Testament is a deliberate attempt to play down a meaningful element of the text. In the New Testament we do not see Jews who “happen not to have accepted Jesus’ identity as Messiah,” but rather mobs of Jews who were determined to kill the Christians if possible. It was not long before the Christians became so disaffected and alienated from the Jewish community in general that it made no practical difference to anyone that most of the Christians were Jews by birth. They had been cast out of the community, just as Christ foretold. In these circumstances it was appropriate enough for the apostles and their disciples to begin speaking of “the Jews” as if they were not of that people. In a very real sense they were no longer Jews, but now children of the God who is Creator and Father of all men. They were an Israel of God that transcended the old Jewish bonds of blood and soil. That is apparently how they understood themselves, having repudiated the narrow ethnic identity which was so much a part of Judaism in the first century. ⁽⁴⁾ In short, the use of the expression “the Jews” in John’s Gospel and in the book of Acts is perhaps the most telling indication of how deeply separated from Judaism the Christians had already become in the first generation of the [edit by this blogger: Christian] Church [(edit by this blogger: the faithful in both the OT, and the NT--who believed Christ, are both called the Lord's "congregation", the same word in the LXX is that used in the NT; but this is also why "Church" is convenient for distinguishing the congregation before and after Christ's "advent")], and it is not right to remove this from the Bible, because it has great theological significance.
__As a matter of principle we must object to the tendency to avoid offending non-Christians in a translation of the New Testament. There are, after all, many other things in both the Old and the New Testament which are bound to offend someone or other. Most of the Old Testament, in fact, is probably quite offensive to Muslims and Arabs in general, because it makes mention of their ancestors in some very unfavorable ways, and foretells their ultimate prostration before the sons of Israel. We might mention hundreds of potentially offensive texts along this line, such as Psalm 137:9 (quoted above), in which a blessing is pronounced upon those who will massacre the infants of Babylon. It is impossible to remove the potential for ethnic offense in such verses while remaining true to the original. We cannot become expurgators of the Word of God while claiming to be faithful translators of it. If we are concerned to help children to avoid misunderstandings and misapplications, the best course would be to present them with such curriculum materials that will achieve this without expurgating the Bible itself. ^{source: see footnote 3}

For an uncensored edition of the NT translated into Hebrew, see that composed by Franz Delitzsch, originally made on the basis of critical texts though conformed later to the TR⁴, which I might add could be a good thing with the insobriety of some of the earlier text-critical practices when what the KJV-onlyists call the “Alexandrian” texts (some who’s readings happen to be found in editions of the TR and in the KJV!) took some time to sober-up. His translation of the NT into Hebrew is even available online here, The Hebrew New Testament of the British and Foreign Bible Society. It is remarkable enough that it is still consulted even though it was wrought prior to the advent of modern Hebrew.

¹ http://www.amazon.com/review/R2GL3688T3JE7Y/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm retreived: 2009-03-02 at 7:25pm MST
² http://www.bible-researcher.com/burke1.html retrieved 2009-03-02 7:30 MST
³ http://www.bible-researcher.com/cev.html retrieved 2009-03-02; 7:40pm MST.
⁴ http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/heb.asp retrieved 2009-03-02 7:45pm MST

Several issues with the ESV are pointed-out by Marlowe’s review. One, the translation, (using my words), accommodates teachings of Grudem and Co., rather than overriding them. Grudem has this “little” problem with trying to be PC to make Christ more appealing to a world, he doesn’t seem to understand, that utterly abhors true Christianity. It is possible to make a middle-position between them, which many to do in order to “build bridges”, but at that point one has already left the small space within which we are to abide, and left “Christianity” for a counterfeit that poses as such. His kind of “apologetics” seems to be truly apologizing for essential Christian teaching, rather than proclaiming them: apologetics as defined from the Greek term whence we get “apologetics”, is not an apology in the sense of being wrong. When Grudem explains-away 1 Cor 11, for instance, (“it’s a sign, just a sign, and only about married women, so here we recognize things like wedding rings”), he ignores Paul’s words there, the Greek, and the historical ensample left us by the Church and interpreters (even the earliest ones) through the ages.

Throughout, the ESV can be counted upon to remove (through re-interpretative renderings) or minimize (through less precise words) offensive teachings with regards to women, slaves, and other such topics according to early twentieth century liberalism, theologically and secularly: however those groups abused Scripture for their causes, it is not uncommon to see Grudem (and evangelicals in general) doing the same; only this time there are not only liberals preaching that Christ came to make utopia, (contrary to His explicit words), but it is seen even by supposedly conservative Christians as a way to get people to “accept Christ”, “look, we hold the same ideas about social justice, so you don’t have to be opposed to Jesus and He gets you into heaven”. I want to put it bluntly: liberal social justice ideals and goals and practical works to obtain them are usually founded upon principles, and pursued through actions, diametrically opposed to Christian ones and ways: those who hold to them practically hold to another faith, (not that there’s never no points of common interest, but nonetheless, this is often the case).

Think I’m too serious about this? Let’s take 1 Cor 11 for an example, now read the last few verses thereof: Paul was a zealot on that point. A stupid fundy, I guess.