Text From the Davidic Kingdom Found?

(And another silly ABC claim that conservative Christianity is as dangerious as radical Islam)

Ok, this could be really neat, if Yossi Garfinkel is right. Who is he you may ask? He is an Israeli archaeologist who has just unearthed what may prove to be the earliest extrabiblical Hebrew text known to man. The Ostracon has been dated to between 1ooo BC and 975 BC, the time of the Davidic kingdom. In fact, it was discovered at a place overlooking Elah Valley, which is the place where David defeated Goliath.

I will have to be honest and say that the best picture I could find is on the FoxNews link I gave above. The only thing I can make out is the Aleph [the letter to which the man is pointing], and the tet [the circle with the x through it]. They seem to not be willing to release high quality photographs to the public so that students and professors can work on the ostracon independently. I don't know what to make of that.

Also, while I was on the ABC website looking to see if I could find more information about the ostrocon, I found a video on interpretation of scripture. I wondered why it is that ABC would be concerned with something like this, and, about halfway through, I realized where this was going. I would invite people to take a listen to this video, and try to avoid rolling your eyes when you hear Dianne Bergant speak:

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=5862066

The arguments Dianne Bergant makes are really, really bad. She tries to argue that the wars in the OT were mandated, and therefore, conservative Christianity is just as dangerious as conservative Islam because they both interpret their holy books "literally," and thus have the possibility of engaging in the same kinds of radical military behavior as radical Islam on the basis of the texts about the mandatory wars in the OT.

First of all, there is some truth in what she says, and that is, namely, that there are some commands in scripture that are meant to not be followed all the way through. Obviously, if we found the grave of king David, we are not to go and anoint him king over Israel [1 Samuel 16:12]. However, the assumption that God cannot speak in language that is binding for all time assumes that there is no sovereign God who knows the future, and can reveal himself in language that is binding for all time.

Not only that, but this hermeneutic breaks down when you ask how it is that you know that you have properly brought the text into our time. You see, this kind of hermeneutic results in no interpretation of a text being wrong. There is no check, and you can use the methodology to come up with all kinds of different interpretations. If you do not take the "literal" approach, it seems to me that we are left with pure subjectivism, as no interpretation can be wrong.

Not only that, but remember that the Israeli wars were a punisment for the radical wickedness of the Caananites. Just read Leviticus 18, and you will see the utter perversity of these people, even burning their own children alive. God said he was going to use Israel to drive these people out in punishment for what they did [Leviticus 18:24-28]. Obviously, God chose many methods to punish ungodly people thoughout the scriptures, so, to suggest that we are to do these things today is to simply rip it out of its context.

However, even worse than that, I have been doing work in canon criticism, that is, understanding the Bible in terms of the whole of scripture using Wittgenstein's concept of a language game. There is absolutely no way you can get the idea that we are to conquer the world by killing people, given what Paul says here:

Ephesians 6:10-12 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of His might. 11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.

Now, let me ask, how is it that a Christian could ever go around killing others to convert them to Christianity when Paul here says that our struggle is not against flesh and blood? Not only that, but Jesus tells us how we are to conquer the world:

Matthew 28:19-20 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

It seems that Jesus says here that we are to conquer the world, not by the sword, or by bombs, or by nuclear weapons, but by the proclaimation of the gospel. Even if you misinterpreted those texts about the utter destruction of Canan, how could you get around these texts?

It is simply unbelievable, and another example of ABC's bias against Christianity.

Reports of the Death of the Gift of Singleness Have Been Greatly Exaggerated

Recently, Gortexgrrl posted this over at the Gift of Singleness blog:

BREAKING NEWS -----

THE GIFT OF SINGLENESS IS DEAD!

After months of campaigning to have it removed from the remaining modern Bibles where it still occupies a place in 1 Cor 7:7, IT HAS FINALLY BEEN REMOVED FROM THE NEW LIVING TRANSLATION.

Check the online version for yourselves here.

Dr. Eugene Peterson at The Messsage has also agreed to do the same.

This is a tremendous victory, folks. Now the next task is to get the NLT to have the word "better" ("to remain as you are") changed to "good" in 1 Cor 7:8 (as it is written in most Bibles). Also, there are still some problems with The Message's version of Matthew 19:10-12. But for now, let's savour this moment and express thanks!

Now, I happen to know one of the translators of the NLT. So, I e-mailed him, and he fowarded me the meeting notes from their discussion of this passage. Here are the meeting notes that were fowarded to me:

We have received an eloquent letter from four single women who take issue with our translation of this passage. They have respectfully asked that we reconsider our translation of this verse (the wording of which is similar to that of The Living Bible) and make it more generic in relation to the various gifts.

Norm has read and evaluated their letter, and he responded with this translation draft:

7But I (might?) wish that everyone was just like me. Yet each person has a special gift from God, of one kind or another.

He went on to say, "I think the important feature is to eliminate a reference to the gift of tongues [does he mean singleness?] and then make the final phrase of 7:7 a general statement applying to all and any gifts, not denoting the gift of tongues [does he again mean singleness?]. Paul affirms that all Christians have a spiritual gift, but not all Christians have the gift of tongues [??], as he proceeds to apply the matter to marriage and abstinence.

Now, before we get too excited, I was also fowarded a letter by the editor of the NLT, Mark Norton in which he explained the committee's reasoning at this point. It will give you all of the context you need [The reference to the idea of manhood is something I had mentioned about Dr. Albert Mohler's recent statements on his blog]. You will just be left shaking your head that such a thing would ever be misconstrued as the "death" of the Gift of Singleness:

Hi Mark and Grant.

I just pulled up this content on our discussion forum as well and have been reviewing it. I think we did the right thing We were concerned that our rendering “But God gives to some the gift of marriage, and to others the gift of singleness” was too specific. I don’t think anyone disagreed with the meaning expressed in our earlier more dynamic/contextual rendering. I think it obvious that in context some are gifted with singleness. But with our more literal rendering (“Yet each person has a special gift from God, of one kind or another”), we have allowed Paul to connect this discussion of marriage and singleness to the larger discussion of spiritual gifts.

I recall that the young woman who brought this up was concerned that our wording (“the gift of singleness”) was fueling an unhealthy assumption among some Christians, i.e., that if God hasn’t provided a mate for you, then you must have the “gift of singleness” and should just accept it and be happy. From perspective of the young woman who wrote us, we had given unnecessary ammunition to people who had drawn a black and white conclusion in a world of difficult gray.

The problem in this case is a little different, where someone out there has taken our change toward the literal as an indication that we have strong feelings against the idea of a gift of singleness. I don’t think any such thought was ever expressed. I think we were happy with the meaning of our earlier rendering. We don’t advocate the idea that the only path to manhood is through marriage. Paul made it clear that there are some would be far better off single. On the other hand, we don’t want to fuel the idea the young woman was struggling with, i.e., that there is this particular “gift of singleness” that (assuming God’s sovereignty) all the “unclaimed” must be gifted with.

Anyway, Grant, I think the young man who has queried you can rest assured that BTC isn’t against the concept of a “gift of singleness,” only the abuse of such a concept.


Mark


Notice, the NLT is not against a concept of the "gift of singleness," but against the abuse of that concept, that is, if God hasn’t provided a mate for you, then you must have the “gift of singleness” and should just accept it and be happy, which is something I stand on the record as being totally against. I have said many times that I have no problems with a woman pursuing marriage if she wants to do so. I also have no problems with a woman wanting marriage. In other words, they [like me] are against the fatalistic notion that, if you are not married, you should just accept it, and do nothing to get married. The issue is whether or not God can say "no" to your request for a spouse both in your actions and in your prayers, and how you will handle it if he does.

Not only that, but also notice that the main reason why the translated it this way is because of the context of spiritual gifts. One of Gortexgrrl's main arguments is that the phrase "one in this manner, the other in that manner" can be a generic statement of all gifts, without referring to any specific gift. However, I argued that we are in the context of marriage and singleness here, and that there is a contrast presented in the text. The NLT committee agreed [and still does agree] that marriage and singleness are both gifts. The NLT committee is taking a position somewhere inbetween what I stated and what Gortexgrrl stated. They agree that the phrase "one in this manner the other in that manner" is referring to a general statement [which it certainly can], but are arguing that singleness and marriage are two of these gifts, along with the spiritual gifts that are mentioned in this chapter. Thus, they wanted to stress the connection between this passage and the discussion of spiritual gifts that will follow. In other words, they reject Gortexgrrl's argument that, because the phrase "the one in this manner, the other in that manner" can be used generically, that, therefore, it precludes the inculsion of singleness and marriage within the realm of spiritual gifts.

Here is again where professional exegetes trump college graduate level exegetes, and why I am still learning in college while they are making money selling translations. I must say, I am impressed with this interpretation of this text. It fits Paul's argument nicely, and shows that Gortexgrrl's arguments from the text are irrelevant.

We must again point out that Gortexgrrl has no training in this area. Now, it would not be hard to get training in this area. In fact, I think one of the main reasons that Debbie Maken's book has become so popular is that young girls and boys are not trained how to do exegesis of their English Bibles in their preteen years, and thus, are left with their feelings, the way things always were, what is "countercultural," and the endorsement of the author on the back of the book to decide who has done the most accurate exegesis of the passage. Her linguistic philosophy is basically, if the Bible does not use a specific term to identify something as a "gift," then, therefore, the Bible does not say it is a gift. However, almost no one today holds that philosophy of language. In fact, the reality is, divorced from a context, words have no meaning whatsoever. My hermeneutics professor, Dr. Grant Osborne, in his book The Hermeneutical Spiral writes that:

Without grammatical relationships to other words, there is not meaning. If I utter the term counter, the hearer has no idea what I mean. Without a context in a grammatical sentence, a word is meaningless. Only as I say "Look on the counter" or "Counter his argument" does the term have a connotation [Osborne, Grant. The Hermeneutical Spiral. IVP Academic. Downers Grove, IL 2006 pgs.82-83 (emphasis mine)].

However, by contrast, Gortexgrrl believes that the specific term "gift" must be used of singleness, or the Bible does not say that singleness is a gift. However, what if other words were used in such a way that they stated that singleness was a gift without using the specific term "gift?" Or, in the case of this passage, what if a generic phrase was used in the context of singleness and marriage to clearly include singleness and marriage as a gift, but not to the exculsion of other spiritual gifts? Indeed, if we allow what Dr. Osborne has said to be true, then we can see that it is not impossible.

In fact, the whole reason why Gortexgrrl is leaping for joy, and misrepresented the NLT translators is precisely because of this odd view of language. She thinks that, if they don't translate the passage with "the gift of singleness," then they must not believe that the text teaches that singleness is a gift. That is saying too much. In this case, they wanted to emphasize the continuity with the passages that follow, without denying that singleness and marriage is a gift, and thus, they decided to make the translation less specific.

As to Gortexgrrl's statement, that "the next task is to get the NLT to have the word "better" ("to remain as you are") changed to "good" in 1 Cor 7:8 (as it is written in most Bibles)," she is referring to an article she wrote here for Thegiftofsingleness blog. In this article, she said:

Verse 8: The NLT translates this verse to mean that it's BETTER to not marry, despite the fact that the original Greek uses the word "KALOS", which is more correctly means "GOOD", as written in the KJV, NASB and the NRSV. Again, it leaves us to wonder why the editors of the NLT would take an interpretation so denigrating of marriage? Even if there are other passages in 1 Cor 7 that suggest the superiority of singleness over marriage (v. 38), they must be looked at within the context of "the present distress" (v. 26, and also 29, 31) that faced the Corinthian people at that time.

Now, I find it interesting that New English Translation, whose New Testament editor is none other than Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, translates the passage like this:

1 Corinthians 7:8 To the unmarried and widows I say that it is best for them to remain as I am.

Again, Gortexgrrl's erronious philosophy of language is coming back to bite her. It is, indeed, true that the Greek term kalo,j means "good" and not "better." However, again, Gortexgrrl has not considered the possibility that grammatical constructions, indeed, even the argument of a whole book can greatly effect the meaning of one word. This is an issue known as syntax. How is it that the usage of a particular for in a particular phrase, sentence, and paragraph can effect the meanings of words and grammatical constructions? What are the possible meanings for any given form? This is a very technical study, but books like Daniel B. Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, an Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, and Bruce Waltke and Michael O'Connor's An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax are very good tools for learning the basics of the syntax of Greek and Hebrew, and I am indebted to these scholars for all I have learned in this field, and highly recommend these books to anyone wanting to study this area.

First of all, let us define our terms in terms of the English language, so we can understand what we are talking about when we discuss the Greek language. If you add an -er to the end of a word, it makes the adjective comparitive. For instance, if you add an -er to the end of "high" you get "higher." If you add an -er to the end of "hard," you get harder. Thus, "higher" and "harder" are comparitives. Now, some English words are irregular. Consider the English term in question, "good." To make this a comparitive, you add an -er to the end, but the entire word changes to "better." The initial words "high," "hard," and "good" are what are known as "positives." Thus, "large," "hard," and "good" are positives, while "larger," "harder," and "better" are comparitives. The easiest way to remember this is that a comparitive adjective is used to compare something, while a positive adjective is just stating something positive about the object [there is one more category called the "superlative," but is not relevant to this discussion].

Now, Greek has a system very similar to this. They have positive and comparitive adjectives as well, and yes, this is not a comparitive adjective. However, Greek can, in point of fact, use a positive adjective in place of a comparitive adjective. Dr. Daniel B. Wallace in his Syntactical Grammar, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, writes the following:

2 . Positive for Comparative

On a rare occasion , the positive adjective can be used for the comparative.

Matthew 18:8 kalo,n soi, evstin eivselqei/n eivj th.n zwh.n kullo.n
it is better to enter life crippled

Here, h' is used later in the sentence to indicate comparison . Obviously, the idea of the positive adj. is insufficient, i.e., it is not good in and of itself to enter life crippled!

Luke 18:14 kate,bh ou-toj dedikaiwme,noj eivj to.n oi=kon auvtou/ parV evkei/non
this man went down to his house more justified than the other

In this text the adjectival participle functions as an adj. Zerwick notes that the true force of Jesus’ words here is that the tax-collector was"justified whereas the other was not." A better gloss would thus be justified rather than the other.

1 Corinthians 10:33 mh. zhtw/n to. evmautou/ su,mforon avlla. to. tw/n pollw/n
not seeking my own advantage, but that of the majority

Certain substantival adjectives which have the notion of comparison embedded lexically (esp .
polu,j) are used for an implicit comparison. Such examples do not follow the structural pattern of comparative adjectives(e.g. , they are not followed by a gen . or h').

c.f. also Matt. 24:12; Luke 16:10; John 2:10 [Wallace, Daniel. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Zondervan Publishing House. Grand Rapids, Michigan. 1995. from the Pradis Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics CD ROM.]

Notice, incedentially, that the term that Dr. Wallace translates as "better" in his first example [Matthew 18:8] is kalo,j. Also, notice that Gortexgrrl's methodology does not work here, as it is "totally insufficient" to translate kalo,j as good. Thus, we have established that, in New Testament Greek, positive adjectives can be used where one would expect a comparitive adjective.

At this point, this is where exegesis comes in to play. You have to be able to defend your choice of a positive translation, over and against a comparitive translation. How does Gortexgrrl do that? She says:

The NLT translates this verse to mean that it's BETTER to not marry, despite the fact that the original Greek uses the word "KALOS", which is more correctly means "GOOD", as written in the KJV, NASB and the NRSV. Again, it leaves us to wonder why the editors of the NLT would take an interpretation so denigrating of marriage?

On any level, Gortexgrrl has failed to give an adequate defense of the positive here. The dictionary meaning is not in dispute. In fact, BDAG lists two definitions with several subcategories, and subcategories of those subcategories. The question is what is the syntactical function of the adjective here. As far as it being "denegrating to marriage," notice how Gortexgrrl has sorta begged the question. She seems to assume that, if you take this interpretation, you are denegrating marriage. Of course, she never bothers to prove that.

The reason why some scholars today take this to be a positive used as a comparitive is because these two are compared again in verse 9, where Paul says "It is better to marry than to burn." Thus, this sets up a parallel with verse 8, and thus, they argue, this is how we should understand verse 8.

Now, maybe they are wrong. However, Gortexgrrl's answer doesn't even begin to prove what she is trying to prove. To go back to the dictionary definition is to once again display this bad linguistic philosophy that every word has meaning in and of itself, and, you cannot identify something as a gift, unless the specific word is used of it. As a matter of fact, that is why Gortexgrrl thought that the gift of singleness was "dead." If the very words are removed from the Bible, then, obviously, it must not be in the Bible. As I pointed out, Gortexgrrl could never translate the New Testament or any document that way. However, I guess that is what you have to do to defend Debbie Maken.

Beware of "Captain Sensible"

I will have to begin with an apology. I have been ill recently, and have not even been able to concentrate in my classes. Hence, I don't know how good this post is going to be, but I simply must post this before Captain Sensible gets away with more of this kind of post.


Many people have wondered why it is that I have bothered to respond to Captain Sensible, and I responded in my last post by saying that Captain Sensible is an influential figure in the Church over in England. I said that I could not reveal any more, but, as a matter of fact, I misunderstood the person who fowarded me these things, and I was written again, and told that I do have the ability to release this information.

Hence, just click on this link, and go and read the biography at the bottom of the page. It will tell you all you need to know about this anonymous "Captain Sensible," and why it is that I keep responding to her. A whole lot makes sense now. We all know that Debbie Maken made a trip to London last year. The interesting thing is that this is right in "Captain Sensible's" backyard, and yet, somehow "Captain Sensible" never made a comment about it on Debbie Maken's blog when she announced that she was going to London. That seems really odd [especially since every time Debbie Maken breathes, Captain Sensible writes about it] until you find out that Deanna Holmes actually did make a comment on Debbie Maken's blog when she announced she was going to London. Not only that, but one always wondered why it is that there is a link from Captain Sensible's blog to the website of London Christians.

Not only that, but, if you do a Google search for "Deanna Holmes," you will find that, in all of her writings, she has used very similar phrases as "Captain Sensible," such as "Well meaning Platitudes" [Captain Sensible, Deanna Holmes] , "For such a time as this" [Captain Sensible, Deanna Holmes], both have attacked Carolyn McCully [Captian Sensible, Deanna Holmes], and have even used the "job" analogy [Captain Sensible, Deanna Holmes]. Indeed, there seems to be no doubt in my mind that "Captain Sensible" is Deanna Holmes, the head of London Christians.


In other words, how much do you think that these ideas are presented at the social events of London Christians? Probably quite a bit. That is why I have continued to respond to this woman, so that our brothers and sisters in Christ who get involved with these social events will be able to respond in a Biblical fashion to the unbiblical position of Debbie Maken. I want people who go to these events and hear these things to find a website like this, and be able to respond to what is presented to them.

With all of that said, I want you to look at the selfishness of Captain Sensible's recent post. First of all, she says:

We are seriously misrepresenting God when we attribute to Him situations causing suffering that we have actually caused ourselves, because we have strayed so far from the Bible. Talk about blaming God for our wrongdoings!

First of all, Captain Sensible's position is not Biblical. That is the whole point of the debate. If anyone wants to see just how these people respond when challanged with exegetical objections to their position, click here, and read my interaction with Debbie Maken. Debbie Maken was reduced to nothing more than empty accusations when she was put up against someone who actually knew how to do exegesis. I will let Debbie's behavior and her refusal to answer direct objections to her position be the refutation of the idea that their position is Biblical.

Secondly, is it true that we are "blaming God for our wrongdoings?" Apparently, Captain Sensible does not believe that God can ordain the pain that we inflict on ourselves because of our sin to conform us to the image of his son. The whole point of this pain is that it is discipline so that we repent of our sins, and turn to Christ. Hence, even the suffering we inflict on ourselves has redemptive value, because it teaches us to turn from our sin, and turn to Christ. Thus, Christ's purpose in his ordination of our sin, and our purpose in committing that sin are two totally and completely different things. Of course, that is why the exegetical issues in this discussion are so important.

Single Christian women, beware!

Instead of addressing the root cause of the problem, this is another attempt to keep you subdued, by making you feel that you should stoically bear your singleness -- and basically not make too much fuss it.

This will allow the enemy to continue to destroy masculinity in the church, and dishonour marriage by making you feel sinful for not being joyful about the suffering or "discipline" singleness causes.

We, as the contemporary church, have brought this problem about.

Here is where the real selfishness of Deanna Holmes' post shows through. What she is basically saying is "I have the right to feel comfortable with regards to marriage and singleness, and, if I do not, it must be someone's fault, either the man's fault, or the church's fault. In fact, this is the very thing I am going to bring to the scriptures, and interpret the scriptures in this light." As I said in my last post, God does not care one iota about your comfort. He wants to conform you to the image of his son. As I have said before, I am not against being proactive in finding a spouse. The way I found my fiancé and [soon to be] wife is by people in my church praying for me, and by actively pursuing a relationship with her. I think the question has to be asked as to whether or not, when we are proactive, God has the obligation to say "yes." I do not believe the scriptures give us any warrant to such a position.

This is why I always bring up the issue of idolatry. If you say that you must have marriage, and God cannot withhold it from you because your comfort is the most important thing in the world, then, yes, you are committing idolatry. And before they go using the starvation analogy, yes, there are many brothers and sisters in third world countries who are starving to death. And you know what? There faith is far stronger than any of ours ever could be. God certainly can grant food, marriage, and conforming to the image of Christ to any person if he so desires, but he is under no obligation to do so. Captain Sensible appears to want to lower God down to her level, so as to make him take her comfort as the highest priority, when it simply is not. And then, to misuse the text of scripture, and selectively cite the reformers in order to make yourself feel better about your idolatry is just simply to get yourself into even deeper water.

Yet, this is what we have to deal with when we deal with these folks. This also, incedentally, shows us why it is that Open Theists are so popular with these folks. They don't want the almighty God of the scriptures who ordains whatsoever comes to pass. They want a God they can control with their own comfort. The God of Open Theism fits that bill very well. It is a sad thing to see, but, hopefully, what I have written with regards to this topic will enable our brothers and sisters in England to see the dangerous road down which this position leads.

In fact, Debbie Maken has been reduced to the level of saleswoman on her blog. The whole post is nothing more than, "Look at the personal comfort that will come to you if you adopt the ideas presented in my book." That is why we need to be careful. Once we value our own personal comfort to the point were single men are shamed, and the church is blamed for everything under the sun, we might feel comfortable, but we will feel comfortable in our sin. That has to be the major question for the church. Do we value marriage more then conforming to the image of Christ, or do we value conforming to the image of Christ more than marriage? By all means, we should help those who want to get married, but to assume that God must give you marriage simply because of your own personal comfort, and assume that someone is sinning by not giving you what you want is simple idolatry.

This whole fiasco also shows the necessity of having sound teaching on the little things in the Christian life. This is why it is important to pay attention to your pastor when he speaks, and to read good sound books on Christian living. I would very highly recommend the preaching of Pastor William Shishko, anything by Edward T. Welch, and, though I don't agree with him on everything, Pastor John Piper has written some excellent things on practical theology. This is why it is so important to, not just be able to interpret the scriptures, but to see how it applies to our everyday life.

All in all, I am glad my post has had the reaction that it has. It really displays the selfish character of this movement, and shows us why it is that proper training Biblical Hermeneutics and practical theology are things which are so desparately needed in the church today. I am also glad that Ted Slater has posted something very similar on the Boundless Blog, and has gotten quite a positive response from single Christian women. I hope that more and more single Christian women start running from Debbie Maken and Deanna Holmes' ideas as fast as they can. However, until then, I guess this website can be a place to which people can point others who are struggling with these issues, both in England, and around the globe.