Categories
Faith, Hope & Scratch-cards.
Categories
I don’t know anyone else in the UK who is doing what Mez is doing at Niddrie. If there is one thing that I have admired about Mez over the years, it’s his tenacity in the face of popular descent. Both he and Miriam can look back at a succession of ‘monuments to obedience’ they have built because they listened to God and not man. As I read this blog, I was again impacted by the risk taking a-traditional approach that typifies Mez’s passion to see Gospel-extension and the saints achieve maximum joy.
For some church leaders, a plan or strategy that posited a 50% success-rate would not make it past round one of a leaders meeting, while others will choose not to denigrate the brand- identity of the church. Safe bets with good margins for success are often the order of the day, or to be extra-safe, not betting at all.
I hope that you feel as challenged, motivated, inspired and excited as I do when you read this.
Any fool can build a big crowd. It takes real men of God to build a big people.
Our current church membership stands at about 55, with another 15 or so waiting in the wings to be baptised. We have a Sunday attendance of anywhere between 70 and 100 (I suspect that’s roughly the same number of urinals found at any Mars Hill Church). By any description we are a small church. Yet, as of October 2012, we will have, at varying levels, 13 people being trained and/or discipled full-time in various capacities.
- We have 4 young men being intensely discipled for a year in ‘James Ramsay House’ our discipleship home for new believers. All of these men will study with Porterbrook Scotland as part of other responsibilities. They will serve in our local cafe, at local clubs, in the church and begin to play a positive role in their local community.
- We will have 3 paid interns who receive a stipend in order to train and develop…
View original post 1,264 more words
This is a little late to be totally topical, but I’ve been off the blog for a while (Doctor’s orders!)
I saw this back in March on Al Mohler’s blog where two Academics (give me strength!) argue for the validity of what we would term ‘murder’ or at the very least ‘infanticide’, but they prefer to term ‘after-birth abortion’. Already they’re in trouble by using an oxymoron as the preferred terminology for their proposal, because the meaning of ‘abortion’ is that the pregnancy is terminated so that birth never takes place. Go figure!
Published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, Professors Alberto Giubilini of the University of Milan and Francesca Minerva of the University of Melbourne and Oxford University argue that:
“We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”
As such they argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”.
The authors therefore concluded that “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled”.
They also argued that parents should be able to have the baby killed if it turned out to be disabled without their knowing before birth, for example citing that “only the 64 per cent of Down’s syndrome cases” in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing.”
They also argue that
newborn human infants lack the ability to anticipate the future, and thus that after-birth abortions should be permitted.
By my estimation, if we used that criterion to make this kind of judgement, about 40% of the population is at risk!
In an age where we know more now than ever about the function and complexity of the human body, selfish ideologies are still prevalent and set to skew the moral compass of society even further.
At one time, the thought of killing new born children would be reserved for the pagan, the barbaric, the cruel and the evil – The Hitler’s, Pol Pot’s and the Ghengis Khan’s of society .
Today it is entertained by scholars in the Journal of Medical Ethics as an idea to contemplate.
If ever a nation needed God, it is now.
Categories
15 Tips on Blogging from John Newton
I love this title which obviously means that I have unashamedly robbed it, in this case from Desiring God.
These 15 tips are lessons taken from the way Newton wrote in his letters and they include:
2. Bloggers should write to edify, therefore it is preferable to write simple truth than to spread eloquent trifles.
4. Women should be encouraged to blog for the benefit of the entire church, since they naturally write in a style more enjoyable, and less stilted, than men are normally capable of.
6. Blog to offer both converting and comforting grace to your reader.
and
14. Do not allow blog writing to cause your neglect of family priorities.
I know many of us follow dead people on Twitter, but what a legacy when their lives, character and writings still penetrate and influence 21st Century peeps.
Who knows, maybe your writing, blogging and tweeting may have a similar effect on a future generation . . . so take heed of John!
Saw this linked by a dear friend last week and thought it was interesting for two reasons.
1. Bragg doesn’t appear to belong to any camp and is broadly regarded as an impartial observer. (OK, I know . . . !)
2. It gives a refreshing perspective of where the ‘man in the street’ really is on a lot of these issues.
What do you think?
If you can get into serious conversation with atheists, these six questions from RZIM are still some of the most compelling that require further explanation.
As far as I am concerned there are just two explanations for the world and the universe as we know it. Only one of them can survive logically.
1. God is eternal and all things proceed from Him.
2. Matter is eternal and all things proceed from it.
Whether you believe in the first or the second, both need a good apologetic (reasoned defence) and the logical ramifications of each need to be carefully examined and worked through.
If you are an atheist, non-Christian or a Christian reading this post, have a look at the six questions and give them some serious thought.
What you think matters.
I have been waiting a couple of weeks for this to come up on line since I went up to 300 Leaders with my good friend Jonathan McClelland. It was a superb day on Apostolic, Prophetic Mission with Dave Devenish and Mike Betts and as usual, we were outragously blessed by Tope Koleoso and the guys from Jubilee Church, London.
Bob Roberts APM Session 2 from Jubilee Church on Vimeo.
OK, so this post has sat in editing since July last year when I saw the above question on a dear friend’s blog recently. I answered a brief ‘Yes’ but on reflection, I thought I ought to expand on my answer a little.
In 2010, Zondervan announced it’s ‘revised’ NIV (which in reality is a revision of the TNIV) which would henceforth be known as ‘NIV 2011’ – although having thumbed through a few at a recent conference, it just has NIV on the cover, so it’s not completely obvious at the point of sale that there is anything new.
I would say that anyone updating their old NIV, would not be immediately aware of any distinction from the 1984 version of the NIV.
It’s fair to say that from the early stages of it’s release (if not before), it has taken a lot of criticism from various quarters. The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) were naturally concerned and although acknowledging that there had been an attempt to restore some of the incorrect translations on the TNIV, they hadn’t gone far enough. As with the TNIV, the Southern Baptist Convention (USA) almost unanimously passed a resolution (but this time tabled from the floor) to condemn this latest translation. The Presbyterian Church in the US were also unhappy with it, voicing public concern.
Caveat Lector!
“So why all the uproar and why should I be interested?” you may ask.
Well I guess that my main reason for posting this is that if your NIV is wearing out and you’re off to buy a new one, then you at least ought to be aware of what you are getting so you can make an informed choice.
A Bit Of Background
When the NIV came into the arena with it’s 1984 translation, it was the translation the evangelical world had been waiting for to replace the King James Version. (Well most of them anyway!) As usual, free copies were put into the hands of potential pastors in Bible colleges and many bought in to it without much persuasion. Even when the RAV (Revised Authorised Version – later to become the New King James Version) hit the market, it did not have a real impact on the readership and failed to get broad critical acclaim due to limiting itself to only translating from the manuscripts used on the original KJV. At that point, the NIV had well and truly cornered the market leaving the NKJV only able to secure a relatively small market share.
Tentative Steps towards . . . . ?
Having become the Bible of choice for many, in 1996, Hodder and Stoughton, the UK publisher of the NIV began to ‘tinker’ and released the first gender-neutral attempt of the version called the NIVi – NIV inclusive. The following year, World Magazine accused the version of being ‘a feminist seduction of the evangelical church ‘. A protest of evangelicals followed led by James Dobson (Focus on the family) and the version never saw the light of day in the US. An undertaking was then sought – and given – that the International Bible Society would not ‘tinker’ with the NIV again.
However, the truth was that in the background, the IBS had already secretly employed a translation committee and in 2002, they issued a letter at short-notice to the concerned parties on a Thursday, stating that they were revoking their earlier agreement and on the following Monday the press releases went out for the TNIV (Today’s New International Version). This was a further attempt to make a gender neutral Bible, and some claim it had a feminist agenda.
Not least, because of the secrecy surrounding it and the tampering with the text, it was very badly received. The Southern Baptists Conference tabled a resolution against and it was the subject of much debate and controversy. Wayne Grudem (Against) debated Mark L. Strauss (Pro) on a number of occasions and the diametrically opposed stalls were laid out.
In truth, the TNIV never made a great impact on the market and this was in part due to it standing on book-shop shelves, cover to cover with the original NIV which still had the affections of many evangelical Christians. As a result, in 2009, it was announced (this time in the open and in good time) that a new NIV was being worked on which would replace the current versions and that the 1984 NIV and the TNIV would be withdrawn on it’s release.
So came the 2011 NIV.
Raising The Issues.
The main issues that had been raised with the TNIV were based mainly on the translation of words such as ‘Father‘, ‘Brother‘, ‘Son‘, ‘Man‘ and ‘He/His/Him‘. Also, the pluralisation of some words, the omission of others and the inclusion of extra words not found in the original text. It is true that Bible translation is a broad field and there are two polar ends of the spectrum.
But is this justifiable in translating an older language to make it both comprehensible and meaningful to the modern reader?
There are two schools in Bible translation and it may help to briefly define them.
1. Dynamic Equivalence.
This approach looks at the writing of the original author and translates on the basis of ‘thought-for-thought’. It would ask the questions “What was the writer trying to convey to the reader back then? How can I best convey that same message to the reader right now?” It’s chief aim would be ‘accuracy of meaning’. To that end it would use words or phrases that may not be an accurate translation of the original text, but would convey the sense of the passage using different words.
2. Formal Equivalence.
This approach is at the opposite end of the spectrum and translates on the principles of ‘Word -for-word’. It’s aim is to accurately translate the original word into the nearest suitable English word. It would ask the questions “What was the word that the writer used when inspired by God? How can I best convey that word in the translation language?”
1a. Problems with Dynamic methods.
There are of course potential problems with both. With the Dynamic method, you are substituting a word or perhaps phrase that was not originally inspired to the author. In some cases the translation loses so much that the reader cannot engage with the writer original thought. Take Romans 13:3-4 as an example. In the English Standard Version it reads:
For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.
But in the New Living Translation it is translated so:
For the authorities do not strike fear in people who are doing right, but in those who are doing wrong. Would you like to live without fear of the authorities? Do what is right, and they will honor you. The authorities are God’s servants, sent for your good. But if you are doing wrong, of course you should be afraid, for they have the power to punish you. They are God’s servants, sent for the very purpose of punishing those who do what is wrong.
You can see that the reference to the sword has been dropped, the thinking being that today, magistrates do not wear swords and in the original context, the sword was regarded as a badge of office. However, as Wayne Grudem has pointed out, the sword also alludes to capital punishment and whether you agree with it or not, by losing that reference, you lose the option for Biblical debate the topic.
2a. Problems with Formal methods
With Formal Equivalence, the problems lay in a different area. By being faithful to the original text, you face the problem that it is not always easy to translate the original text in a meaningful way. There are problems when ancient words do not have a direct or modern equivalent. Or you may need to use more than one word to render the meaning. On the other hand one modern word may have more meanings and therefore be used to translate four or five original words – not always obvious to the reader which is being used.
We can then add to that the problems of nuance, idiom and genre. Something may lose it’s meaning when translated too literally. Imagine literally translating ‘There’s more than one way to skin a cat’ into Korean (that’s not from the Bible by the way!) It would instantly lose meaning without further explanation. Poetry can lose it’s prose through translation and humour missed completely. Word order is also a problem and if the English translations all followed Hebrew or Greek word order, then preachers would sound like Yoda on Sunday mornings (which may add interest to some sermons!)
5. . . . . so which is better? There’s only one way to find out . . . .
Anyhow, both these are accepted methodologies of translation and quite often a combination of both are employed in varying proportions. (See chart below.)
There is also one more category which is used and is known as ‘Paraphrase‘. A paraphrase version is a new English version is largely based on an existing English text – effectively a translation of a translation. Examples of this include Eugene Peterson’s ‘The Message’, Rob Lacy’s ‘Street Bible and Ken Taylor’s ‘The Living Bible’. That latter was revised as a translation where the paraphrase was corrected by translation and became the New Living Translation (NLT). Paraphrasing is not translating so is not really a part of this debate.
Big questions this raises. . .
For me one of the biggest question is this:
What is the job of the translator?
Is it merely to translate or is it also to add interpretation and application? During the translation process, the translation committees are faced with at least two main challenges. One is to translate the words as accurately as possible into the native tongue. The second is to ensure that meaning is not lost in translation.
But at the end of the day, is not theirs is the job of translation and only translation?
Now if we take the Greek word ‘anthropos’ it’s literal meaning is ‘man’, just as the Hebrew word ‘Adam’ also means ‘man’. Is there ever a case where ‘anthropos’ can mean ‘man and woman’. Yes, and it is clearly defined by the context. There is legitimacy in translating these words in the way that conveys how they were understood at the time.
But then take the Hebrew word ‘Ab’ – Father. Can it ever mean Mother, parent or parents?
No it will always mean Father, because in Hebrew it always meant Father.
Valid Objections?
‘But!’ someone might say – ‘But some of these passages that speak of Fathers, Brothers and Son etc, – they also have application to Mothers, Sisters and Daughters etc.’
And I would agree 100%.
But now we are moving into a very different discipline – ‘Application’ and in my opinion, that discipline should lay solely with the Bible teachers. The task of the translators is not to apply the Bible, but to convey as accurate rendering of the original as possible.
The task of applying the Word comes through the Bible teacher, which is a gift of the ascended Christ.
Full circle.
Where then am I going with this? I would go this far and state that the NIV 2011 has gone much further than a translation should. For years, the NIV translation committee has pushed out in a particular direction which I would sum up as ‘Egalitarian & gender-neutral’ and have driven this new reworking hard and fast in that direction.
In that respect, they are not much different to any other translation committee. The all have their biases. The question as always is ‘Which bias is the best bias to be biased by!’
My objection to the NIV 2011.
Where my objections really lay is in that the NIV has for the best part of four decades had a huge market share of Evangelical and beyond readership. Pew Bibles, Gideon’s, John’s Gospels . . . the majority are NIV.
And now, in one fell swoop, the NIV committee having seriously overhauled the 1984 work are able to slip it relatively unnoticed to a loyal readership who will unwittingly renew to this version when the old one needs replacing. I know this to be true for a fact, because I have spoken to people who have done it unawares and they are shocked when you tell them.
Well some are anyhow!
Am I arguing for a version? No. I am arguing for accuracy of translation that enables Bible teacher’s to teach as effectively as possible. I am arguing for the right of a Christian to make an informed decision on the Bible they purchase.
Well that’s my two-bob’s worth.
I’ll be interested to hear yours.
A couple of weeks ago, I recieved a ‘hearty’ invitation through the door, printed in black 11 point text on an A6 piece of cream paper. The occession for such oppulent extravegance you wonder? It was to attend a series of ‘Christian Meetings’ at Corfe Mullen Village Hall (Well in the small funtion room at the back at any rate.)
Obviously I was underwhelemed by such an offer, I pondered the words of those great theologians, The Clash, ‘Should I stay or should I go?’
Go!
. . . Eventually.
I arrived at the village hall a few minutes before and was promptly ignored by the ten or so people who were obviously belonging to the group. Other than me, there were four other people who were obviously not part of this group. I say obviously as the other men had gone with the suit, tie and floppy King James Version of the Bible rather than the traditional jeans, hoodie, body-warmer and beenie with an ESV on the iPhone that I had opted for (I know, call me a stickler for tradition!)
The other ladies I recognised from another local church, but they too had not opted for the ankle length skirts and long grey hair put up into buns. They even wore colour.
Apart from the young man in his late twenties who sprint-walked from the front to furnish me with a copy of a small, maroon, plastic backed hymn book entitled ‘Hymns Old & New’ (‘new’ in this instance meaning circa 1874) all the rest of the group were in their sixties and seventies.
It was obvious that this was a solemn occasion because to a man, every last one of them looked like they had been delivered some news of a terminal illness or worse. I am not exagerating when I say that I have been to happier funerals. One of the other ladies that I knew from another church is called Joy, but other than her, there was a complete absence of any joy or rejoicing in the place.
During the first twenty minutes of the meeting, we managed to crank out four of the hymns from ‘Hymns Old & even Older’, all of which would have tested the vocal chords of any opera singer. We sat to sing . . . perhaps standing was too jovial . . . and the young man in his twenties came to the front to share some verses of the Bible in a way that was a cross between Darth Vader’s heavy breathing and a police officer coming to tell you that your entire family has been wiped out in a freak meteor storm.
I managed to contain my inappropriate giggles that I get in such moments.
Another hymn and we were into the main focus of the evening the ‘gospel’ message.
I put gospel in inverted comma’s, because the Gospel is ‘Good News’.
It’s good news about Jesus Christ and it is good because it starts by telling me that I am wretched, helpless and headed for eternal judgement that I have no power to stop, but then tells me that I don’t need to because God Himself has intervened and paid the price for me through the cross of Jesus Christ.
This man however, talked not of Christ, but about what they believed and how like Christ they were.
Hmmm.
He then turned us to Luke 6, a complementary passage to the Matthew 5 passage that he was speaking from and underscored their miserableness from that passage. There’s really was a message of “Let Jesus make you miserable!”
One more hymn and the ordeal was over. I was looking forward to a cup of tea and a chat with these people, but was bitterly disappointed. I can honestly say they only people I have seen leave a church service quicker than these people are people under grave conviction of their sins.
Not one of them acknowledged me or the other four people there, let alone attempting to say hello.
Apart from two of the guys that stayed on to stack the chairs, the others fled and left the rest of us to be cleared up around.
Eventually, and perhaps because I was still sitting on a chair he wanted to stack, the speaker came and spoke to me.
“What’s your vision for Corfe Mullen?” I enquired mischievously.
“To see people come to faith in Jesus Christ.” Was the somewhat surprised reply.
“Brilliant! And other than this one hour meeting where you all fly off at the end, what are you doing to help see that happen?”
“Erm . . . we’re putting these leaflets through peoples doors!”
I looked around the room. There had been ten of them, four other believers and a guywho I would probabley want to keep away from my kids.
“Well that didn’t work did it?”
“It’s the Lord’s work . . . . ”
Well no, it wasn’t. Jesus came and dwelt among us, felt our pain, saw our bondage and had compassion upon us. Star Trek Christianity is not Biblical. Beam down from the mother-ship for an hour a week and then beam back up without even caring enough to find out my name. Come on! And there was I expecting a cup of tea and a soggy biscuit, minimum!
It’s a challenge to me. In four weeks, I am running an Alpha Course with the guys from the crowd in the west of the conurbation. We have booked Costa in Broadstone and we are hoping and praying that we fill the place with people we know, love and care about. We want to love them enough to to them the truth about their eternal future and what they can do about it.
Our Gospel isn’t that Jesus makes you happy. It is that Jesus brings you JOY beyond anything you have or can ever know.
Joy unspeakable.
This is a fantastic interview with Professor John Lennox where he talks about Science, Atheism, God, Science and much more. About 44 minutes, but well worth watching.
Dot Cotton's Handbag 
