Survived Week 1

Well, one week down . . . eleven to go. I survived 150+ pages of reading and 1500-2000 words of writing (mostly on class discussion boards). Apparently in Seminary none of the profs believe in "easing into" the school year (or if this is "easing in", I'm really scared!). Isn't it amazing how college and seminary students pay thousands of dollars in tuition for the privilege of attending class and then complain about it the whole time?

Actually, so far I'm enjoying my internet classes for the most part. They're like giant blogs/discussion groups with the prof posting his notes and a topic and then everyone comments on it and on other people's comments, and so on. Kind of interesting to see some of the rabbit trails that develop . . . though so far none of them have been as wild/strange as the ones that we used to get on in some of my theology classes in college right before a break when everyone was tired . . . you know, fun things like: "to what degree was someone like the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 'eunuchized'?" or "Was there something inherant in the fruit that made Adam and Eve realize they were naked?" Anyway . . . my brain hurts too much to come up with anything clever or deep sounding, so I guess I'll leave you to ponder those questions.

Survived Day 1

Well, I survived my first day back in classes. Of course, since most of my classes this semester are online I didn't really have to go anywhere . . . though I did have about 50 pages of reading and a couple paragraphs of writing due the very first day in Church History.

So far everything's pretty interesting (at least by my definition of interesting). Like, I thought it was pretty cool that one of the evidences that the book of Daniel was really written by Daniel in the 6th century B.C. is his knowledge of details that we've only recently ( in the last 50-100 years) discovered in archaeology/historical reseach: For example, while one of Babylon's favorite methods of execution was burning alive (think Shadrach/Hananiah, Meshach/Mishael, and Abed-Nego/Azariah in the fiery furnace under the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar) the Persians preferred to carry out their executions by throwing people to the lions (think Daniel in the lion's den under the Persian king Darius).

There've even been some odd and entertaining if not especially important little tidbits like Origen's mother hiding his clothes so he couldn't go turn himself in to be martyred. I can just imagine it "Young Man, I'm tired of arguing with you! If you're going to go needlessly turn yourself over to the authorities so you can be killed like your father you go right ahead and do that . . . but you're going to have to go naked! . . . And don't come crying to me afterwards!"

Illegal Immigrant Irritation Addendum

Just a quick post today . . . I thought up a little addition to the comment/analogy that Nathan posted on my first illegal immigration post (you can click this link: http://blog-joel.blogspot.com/2007/08/illegal-immigrant-irritation-and.html#comments if you don't feel like scrolling down a couple screens to find it or if you're reading this post on my Xanga site).

This would go after the 2nd or 3rd bullet point of the comment and relates to the article that I referenced in the main post:

*This is my son. He was born in your house so he is a member of your household with all the rights of a family member, even though I wasn't supposed to be in your house in the first place.

Anyway . . . that concludes my commentary on this particular topic . . . for now at least.

WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!! . . . oh wait, nevermind!

I found this interesting article on a lesser-known news site, and I doubt it'll ever see the light of day from one of the "mainstream" news networks (don't you just love media bias?), so I figured I'd post the link here for you: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57253.

It's about a recent study that's going to be published in "the peer-reviewed Journal of Geophysical Research" (the article has a link to the actual study too, though it's pretty technical). It purports to prove that humans have little or nothing to do with any "global warming" that is occurring.

The part that I found most interesting (though it wasn't necessarily the main argument) was where it talks about what percentage of the atmosphere is from human activity (0.038% of the atmosphere is carbon dioxide and we are responsible for 2.75% of that carbon dioxide, meaning that human CO2 emissions account for 0.001% of the gases in the atmosphere . . . that's one-onehundredthousandth).

Anyway . . . there it is if you're interested in reading the other side of the argument that you never hear in the "mainstream" media. I think it shows that the data for human-caused catastrophic global warming isn't as "indisputable" or quite the "scholarly consensus" that Al Gore, Leo DiCaprio, et al. would like you to believe. You have to wonder . . . if they're so secure with their data and conclusions why not give a hearing to opposing viewpoints? Kinda reminds me of this picture my brother Nathan had on his blog a couple days ago (just substitute Truth, Proof, or Logic for Intensity and it really works!):

Oh, and the comment/post that someone left on my Illegal Immigration Irritation post from yesterday is great! Much more entertaining than my post . . .

Illegal Immigrant Irritation (and Alliteration!)

Well, this was going to be a longish rant about illegal immigrants, based on this article:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/19/immigration.activist.ap/index.html, which has a sympathetic tone toward the ILLEGAL alien being deported even though she's clearly, anapologetically, and even proudly BREAKING THE LAW (with the help of a church no less), but I have a headache.

I was going to say something about evident bias since the pro-lawbreaker (I mean, "pro-illegal immigrant") side gets most of the coverage while the pro-enforce-the-laws-of-the-country side gets two sentences. I was going to say something about how I have no problem with legal immigrants since everyone here in the US either came from somewhere else or has ancestors who did (even the "Native Americans" . . . they just got here a long time before anyone else). I was going to say something about how I feel sorry for the law-abiding people who are trying to get into the country legally but are being delayed because there are so many of their countrymen "cutting in line." I was going to sum up by saying that even if these "poor illegal immigrants" have it hard in their country and are coming here for a better life there are LEGAL ways of doing so (and plenty of their poor countrymen who are trying to do so) and I don't feel the least bit sorry for them when they get deported because they are here, by definition, ILLEGALLY.

But, as I said, I have a headache so I'll spare you all that and leave you with this quote from the article. It's the one quote by a pro-enforce-the-laws-of-the-United-States source, but I think it beatifully answers the people who are "sad, but at the same time we are angry," and think "How dare they arrest this woman?" (actual quotes). Here it is:

"Just because the woman has gone public and made an issue of the fact that she is defying law doesn't mean the government doesn't have to do its job,"

Baseball, Boredom, and Booing

Having grown up watching the REAL football (aka soccer), I find baseball to be a very boring sport. In football (soccer) there is almost always something going on that involves at least half of each team being in near-constant motion for two 45 minute halves. . . no timeouts, no clock stoppage, no time for the TV to go to commercials, either team could score at any time, play only stops briefly for fouls (and not at all if the fouled person retains the advantage) or the ball going out of bounds. There are only 3 substitutions allowed for each team so most of the players on the field basically run for 90 minutes (with one 15 minute break at halftime) while controlling a ball and coordinating team attack and defense strategy all without using their hands . . . these guys are REAL athletes.

Baseball, on the other hand, mostly involves guys standing around, scratching and spitting while one guy from one team (the pitcher) psyches himself up enough to try and outsmart one guy from the other team (the batter). The occasional flurries of action when someone actually gets a hit can be exciting, but there's SO MUCH standing around, and in the event of a "perfect game" you basically sit and watch the pitcher throw the ball a few dozen times while various poor saps try to hit it. I'm inclined to agree with my dad that baseball is the "lazy man's sport" (especially now that so many of the "best" players don't even have to work as hard for their muscles thanks to the rampant use of steroids). I once heard football (soccer) and steroidball (I mean baseball) compared as "in soccer you run for 90 minutes and in baseball you run for 90 feet."

Despite all that, I don't mind going and watching a baseball game live at the stadium (at least not for the first 6 or 7 innings . . . after that the pitcher's tired so it gets even slower). The atmosphere at a live sporting event makes most sports more entertaining (even if it's just because you're laughing at the drunk people making fools of themselves). Anyway, we got some free tickets to go to the local minor league baseball game last night and decided to take the girls to their first baseball game.

Now, the local team is the triple-A team for the New York Yankees, and even though I'm obviously not a baseball fan, I REALLY don't like the Yankees. Mostly because I don't like teams who are only good because they have tons of money and "buy" all the good players away from other teams (and that goes for any sport . . . I can't stand Real Madrid FC for the same reason). Also, Karen hates the Yankees so as a good husband I must hate them too. And there was also this one guy that I knew in college who was a die hard Yankees fan and was incredibly obnoxious about it and could talk about nothing else (some of you may know him . . . His initials are MR) who just completely turned me off to the team.

Sooooo . . . not to let four perfectly good tickets go to waste, we went and cheered for the visiting team (some team from Syracuse). It was actually quite fun annoying the Yankees fans sitting around us (especially since there were quite a few Syracuse fans in our section). So we whooped and clapped along with the Syracuse fans whenever they scored or made a good play, pointed and laughed at the Yankees inept fielding, yelled "Choke" after the "dadadaDAdaDAAA" when you're supposed to yell "Charge," and booed when the occasion called for it. The teenage boys behind us were getting pretty annoyed and muttering about people who came to the game just to cheer against the Yankees which just made us cheer louder. Then one of them started taunting the Syracuse batters with the usual "HeybattabattabattaSWINGbatta" which was really funny when the batter swung just as he said "SWING" and knocked the ball out of the park for a home run.

The girls seemed to have a good time. They didn't have the slightest idea what was going on but seemed to enjoy all the noise and clapping (Katie clapped for either team of course) and being way up high. (We were in the upper deck which is the most dangerous feeling seating I've ever seen in a stadium or arena. I think I could've stood up on my seat in row 'H' and easily jumped past row 'A' because the seating was so steep.) They snacked on Goldfish crackers (brought by us) and Crackerjacks and a soft pretzel (both bought at an obscene price from the concession stand) and pretty much ignored anything going on on the field other than the big purple mascot. We made it through the 6th inning before Abby got cranky (and I got bored) and we left for the night. So that was the girls' first baseball game.

Monday we have tickets for another game. These ones are from the bank where I work and are REALLY good seats . . . front row right behind the dugout (you can sit back and rest your feet on the dugout roof). We're taking some friends with church with us and I guess we'll go cheer for the visiting again . . . go Whoever's-Playing-The-Yankees!

Han Shot First!

I'm going to be lazy today and just tell you that my brother-in-law has a great post over on his blog about the famous Geek controversy of who shot first, Han Solo or Greedo. He presented it as a text-critical problem and it's very funny, so here's a link to it complete with my comment on it (which is the length of a short post so you get an original post from me after all): http://fuzzyface.wordpress.com/2007/08/13/the-lucasian-variants-of-the-solo-greedoian-conflict/#comment-192

Gearing Up for Classes

Well, summer is drawing to a close . . . only two more weeks of freedom left. Actually, while I've greatly enjoyed my class-free summer, I'm looking forward to most of my classes.

I've managed to work out my class schedule for the rest of the time I'm in seminary so that most of my classes are Internet-based instead of on-campus. That's really nice because I'll save a lot of money on gas (I live 20 minutes from the seminary) and be able to work more hours (generally there are no set class time for Internet classes . . . come in and read/watch/listen to the lectures and participate in the message board discussions when you have the time).

Unfortunately, the one class that I have to be on campus is Expository Preaching. This is pretty much the same class that cost me my perfect 4.0 GPA in college and was also one of my least favorite classes ever. It's not that I mind preaching (though I prefer teaching). I just don't like to preach to a room full of people who's sole purpose in listening to me is to critique me. In college I always got dinged for "not having enough passion" by the guys who think it's necessary to shout and gesture wildly to prove that you're "passionate" about what you're preaching. Oh well, maybe it'll be a little better now that I have more practice (and hopefully those doing the critiquing are a little more mature now that we're in seminary and realize that not everyone has the same style).

My other classes are Pneumatology (the study of the Holy Spirit) which should bring up some interesting discussions related to the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement, Exposition of Daniel and Revelation which will basically be a study of end-time prophecy, and Church History which sounds interesting (I love history!) except for a group project (I've never been involved in a group project for school where everyone does their share . . . there's always a slacker in the group).

Anyway, in a couple weeks posts on here may become less frequent and if they're serious posts the topics will probably be the Holy Spirit, end times prophecy, church history, or me whining about a prof or assignment.

Just an advance warning . . . and now I'm off to try and cram in the last bit of goofing off before it's time to buckle down and study.

42!

Here's a great picture that Art sent me of some leaves he found:That repository of all knowledge, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy contains an entry that states that in an infinite universe there exists somewhere a tree that produces any given object (I believe the example given in The Guide is ball point pens, but I don't have my copy with me so . . . OH NO! Where'd my towel go?!). Anyway, it seems that Art has discovered the tree that produces leaves that are almost but not entirely unlike Brazilian flags!

More Textual Criticism

Again, I wrote this as a reply to another post on another blog and I'm long-winded enough that my answer was as long as a normal blogpost so I'm editing it slightly and re-posting it here for your reading pleasure or ignorage (ignorage: n. the act of ignoring . . . yes, I made it up).

The question was: My brother in law Ray Ray was wondering about the verse in Colossians 1:14 that in the NASB leaves out the word "Blood" but a lot of other versions have it, including the KJV. What text is the NASB based on? Why would they take it out, especially since they seem to be so literal in their translation?

First off, the phrase "through his blood" is absent in the NASB, NIV, and ESV (some editions may include it as a footnote). As far as I know, the KJV and NKJV are the only major translations that have it. According to some, this "proves the superiority" of the KJV over the modern translations.

Second, the NASB (and most or even all modern translations) is based on the Nestle-Aland (or UBS which is the same text, just a different apparatus) "critical edition" of the Greek New Testament which usually gives priority to the papyri and the Alexandrian texttype when variants are present. If that paragraph didn't make any sense to you, just ignore it.

This is a fairly common kind of argument used by many in the "KJV Only" crowd. However, it is a very poorly constructed argument because it assumes that the KJV is "the standard" and any deviation from it is an "error" or, worse yet, a deliberate attempt to water down doctrine. In reality, our standard should be, what the author (Paul in this case) wrote in the original GREEK. Variations between Greek manuscripts (not some heretical intent) are the reason for this kind of difference between the KJV and more modern translations.

In this case, there are only 9 relatively late (none prior to AD 800) Greek Manuscripts that support the reading that contains "through his blood." This is such a small number (there are about 5,500 Greek MSS of various parts of the Bible) that no scholar, whether he believes in Byzantine or Alexandrian priority, would consider it original based on external (purely MSS) evidence. In all likelihood, one of these manuscripts was used by Erasmus (I can't find an article that tells me exactly which dozen or so manuscripts he used) in compiling the TR which served as the basis of the KJV.

If you are wondering how that variant was created in the manuscript, check out Ephesians 1:7: identical phrasing, but with the inclusion of the phrase "through his blood". Whatever scribe was copying Colossians probably (consciously or unconsciously) harmonized Colossians 1:14 with Ephesians 1:7.

This gives you an example of how textual variants don't call into question any major doctrine. Whether the phrase "through his blood" is original in Colossians 1:14 or not, you have the exact same thing taught in a myriad of other places in Scripture (and it's implied whether the phrase is there or not).

Interestingly, in the KJV vs. Modern translations debate, if anything, this argument proves the INFERIORITY of the KJV in this particular passage (oops, did I say that out loud?)

Textus Receptus

This post was actually originally a reply to Art's post on the Textus Receptus at http://fuzzyface.wordpress.com/2007/08/01/textus-receptus-and-the-johanneum-comma-of-doom/, but since I really enjoy learning/talking about Greek manuscripts (MSS), textual criticism, etc. it kind of blew up into a full size post and I decided to edit it a little and re-post it here. For anyone who's not familiar with the Textus Receptus (TR), it's the first printed edition of the Greek New Testament (GNT), and was used as the basis for the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible. Some of my comments may make more sense if you read Art's post first. Oh, and just as a warning, if you're a diehard supporter of the TR or subscribe to the "King James Only" position this post will tick you off.


Basically, I think that the TR is the worst commonly used printed edition of the Greek New Testament. Not that it's heretical or anything, but as Art pointed out, Erasmus wasn't very careful with it (he was rushing through it so that his would be the first one published) . . . he only had a handful or so of relatively late MSS and didn't really do any textual criticism (i.e. when the texts differed he didn't bother trying to determine which reading was more likely original . . . he just picked one). And, of course, his book of Revelation has readings in it that are found in NO Greek MSS because none of the MSS he had contained the end of Revelation so he just translated it back into Greek from the Latin. The only reason it's called the Textus Receptus (Received Text) is that one of the early editions (I think the one by Stephanus) used that phrase in its introduction in a phrase something like "The Greek text received by all". . . so basically it's named for a publisher's advertising blurb.

I don't understand the rabid attachment that some people have to the TR. Even if someone prefers Byzantine/Majority text over Alexandrian for some reason (for discussion on this, see my post from 6/5 entitled "Codex Vaticanus"), the TR is not the best example of the Byzantine/Majority texttype. I don't think there's any way to logically hold the TR as superior once you know its history (though I suppose some would try to argue that Erasmus was re-inspired or some such nonsense that confuses inspiration and preservation).

As far as the KJV Only/Superiority thing . . . I'm with Art. The purpose of a translation is to make the Word of God understandable, and the archaic language of the KJV no longer adequately communicates to the average American (unless you grew up with it or are a big fan of Shakespeare). Despite being based on the somewhat flawed TR, it was a good translation for it's time However the English language has changed too much for it to be the best option for most people anymore. After all, how many Americans are going to be able to tell you that "he sod pottage" means "he cooked stew"? (to give an especially archaic example). And, of course, modern translations also have the advantage of being based on slightly better Greek texts.

SIDENOTE: A few points in favor/defense of the Alexandrian text over Majority/Byzantine that I didn't mention in my first post on textual criticism:

1. The KINDS of variants usually present in the Majority/Byzantine text are more consistent with a later text than those usually present in the Alexandrian - conflations, harmonization, more polished/less potentially offensive wording, etc.

2. In answer to the claim that greater number of MSS guarantees better quality given a "normal transmission history: There was not a "normal transmission history" - Greek ceased to be spoken in the Western Empire (of which Alexandria was a part) in favor of Latin fairly early, but continued to be spoken in the Eastern (Byzantine) Empire hundreds of years longer.

3. On Origen (who was supposedly heretical and supposedly connected with the Alexandrian texttype): In his later years Origen was actually more closely associated with the area connected to the Majority/Byzantine texttype than with Alexandria!

Sadly, it's been over a year since I took my textual criticism class so that's all I can remember for now (you're probably saying, "thank goodness").

Okay . . . I'll shut up now . . . this is just a topic that I find extremely interesting so I couldn't help myself :)