July 23, 2011 Leave a comment
“I do not need to plead my own cause … I am a dead man already. My life is dead and hidden with Christ. It is your lives that in danger, you are dead in your sins. I will pray to God that after you have killed me, He will spare you from eternal destruction.
- Kefa Sempangi, facing 5 would be assassins in Idi Amin’s Uganda
via Kingdom People via Mike Neglia
July 22, 2011 3 Comments
Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D., (Executive Director for the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts) has some important posts on the NIV 2011. See his A Review of the NIV 2011: Part 2 of 4 (part 1 here). I’m anxious to see what he does in the remaining 2 entries.
A few snippets are:
Often I am asked, “What is the most accurate translation today? What is the most literal, word-for-word translation?” I point out that those are two separate questions, and that the answer for one will be different from the answer for the other…The best translation is one that is faithful to the meaning of the original text. That does not always, nor even usually, mean a literal translation.
Finally, the TNIV (2005) and NIV 2011 should be mentioned. These are gender-inclusive translations or perhaps gender neutral, but not nearly to the extent as the NRSV. And on the translation committee—indeed, the chairman of the Committee on Bible Translation, Douglas Moo—are those who would be styled ‘complementarians.’ That is, these translators (by no means all, but a good portion of them no doubt) generally believe in male leadership in the home and church. The opposing group is known as egalitarians, those who believe essentially that men do not have the sole rights as leaders in the home or church. The remarkable thing about these two newer translations is that such scholars could work together to produce them. And all of them are evangelicals. This speaks very highly for the TNIV and NIV 2011 and serves as an implicit endorsement of the translation by both groups. Although ‘over 100 scholars’ seems like overkill for a good translation (a much smaller group could do as good a job if not better), the NIV’s multinational and multidenominational workforce removes it from any charges of sectarian bias. This really has to go for the gender issue, too, because of both complementarians and egalitarians on the translation committees.
The text of Rom 3.22 says, “This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ…” while the alternate rendering is, “This righteousness is given through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ…” (The NET Bible continues to be the only committee-produced English Bible that reads “faithfulness of Jesus Christ” in the text here, as far as I am aware.) This alternative received only a passing note in Cranfield’s magisterial two-volume commentary on Romans (1975-79); it cannot so readily be dismissed today, even though other recent translations do indeed dismiss it readily.
July 21, 2011 2 Comments
Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face, check out Rod Decker’s post: Wayne Grudem’s use of inclusive language. Be sure and read the comments (warning: for the comments, put on your technical grammar hat!). Especially see Decker’s comment:
The detractors [of the NIV 2011] have lists of *thousands* of passages, but they really don’t accomplish anything. All they illustrate is that NIV11 has been reasonably consistent in their work. CBMW like to speak of “2,700″ errors in the NIV11 (I think that number is close; I didn’t go back to verify it; you can probably find the list at cbmw.org). But that’s foolishness. It smacks of the KJV-only crowd listing every example that differs from KJV as an error.
I just completed a 50-page (sg. sp.) review of NIV11 that I’ll be posting in a week or so. I’m presenting it (actually, an overview of it) at a conference and the post will go up near that time.
On a similar note, see Craig Blomberg’s “Wives, Women, or Deaconesses?” where he takes the ESV translators to task asking:
How can God’s people submit themselves to an inerrant Bible that should wield authority over them when translators introduce speculative interpretations for them in an imbalanced way without ever acknowledging that that is what they are doing?
July 20, 2011 2 Comments
Paul Helm, emminent philosopher and theologian, has a great piece on John Piper’s Christian hedonism and some reflections on The Pastor as Scholar, the Scholar as Pastor. Here’s how he concludes:
The alternative to adopting Piper’s hedonism is not to become Stoics. Augustine said: I refute Stoicism with two words: ‘Jesus wept’. We ought not to confine the shape of Christian character by a definition that focusses exclusive attention on passion, but to recognise the part to be played by every mode of the full human personality – not the understanding and the felt affections alone, but also the will and the virtues.
Check out his Baring Our Souls – John Piper & Christian Hedonism.
July 18, 2011 10 Comments
Keep in mind that we’re not simply trying to settle a doctrinal issue. We’re talking about people’s destinies. The thought that someone may end up banking on a second chance after they die even though the biblical authors never explicitly said this is … well …
Terrifying.These are eternal destinies we’re talking about. We can’t be wrong on this one.
(p. 36)
These are perhaps the most sobering words in the new release from Francis Chan and Preston Sprinkle, 
Erasing Hell. This book is an impassioned plea to deal squarely and honestly with the Bible’s teaching on hell. In a style Chan has come to be known for, it is conversational in tone and you can’t help but feel as if he’s sitting across a table at Starbucks sharing from his heart.
While reading, I recalled some emotions I experienced many years ago when preparing for a sermon on hell. Without question those weeks in preparation were difficult as I pondered many biblical texts that speak about life after death for the unbeliever (see my Is Hell Going out of Business?). Passages such as Rev. 14:11; 20:10 and Is. 66:24; Dan. 12:2; Matt. 25:46; 2 Thess. 1:8-9 are not easy to ponder and brought me to my knees on not a few occasions.
One of the unique contributions of Erasing Hell is Chapter 6, “What if God … ?” and the discussion around Rom 9:22-23. Anyone thoughtful about this passage knows it’s not easy to understand (the Greek is not entirely clear). The question here is: Are the vessels prepared for destruction participating in their own preparation (middle voice) or [Read on...]
Tweet
