Flotsam & Jetsam (7.13.05)

Let's see, I can give a brief mention to Phil Johnson every stinking day he is in England and not get blogspotted, but I bet that if I complain about it once, I'll get noticed (this is an emergency test of the blogspotting system).  Kidding aside, Pyromaniac has some good advice for those visiting the mission field.

SI has posted Kevin Bauder's article entitled A Fundamentalism Worth Saving, which if you didn't read before, you should read now. 

Peter at Stronger Church is thinking about Eliff's article on the SBC and unregenerate members.

Dory at Wittenberg Gate reviews Choosing a Bible: Understanding Bible Translation Differences (Crossway, 2005) by Leland Ryken.  Ryken comes down in favor of literal versus dynamic equivalency translations, which is philosophically why we use the NASB in our public reading of scripture.  This sounds like a good book to give a young believer trying to choose a new Bible. 

Doug Wilson on expertise versus egalitarianism.  I used both words last Saturday when leading a group of newcomers through a discussion of church polity.  One of the biggest changes for members coming into our fellowship from non-denom or baptist backgrounds is the shift from a congregational to an elder-rule of governance.  When I say, "We don't vote on things around here," eyes normally get big and people wonder how we function.  Well, it has been wonderful to get some of the politics out of the administration of the church and entrust the oversight to spiritually mature people, but any "system of governance" is only as good as the content of its character.  Wilson's got a point.

EO with some candid thoughts on blogging.  Like Joe, I spent a few weeks trying very hard to rise in the TTLB ecosystem (king of the blogs comes to mind), but also like Joe, real life comes crashing in and you realize blogging just isn't the be-all and end-all.  It's a great tool, mind you, but one that must be kept in perspective.

Bono apparently needs to attend EE.

Comments

[Donald C S Johnson]

Hi Jon

Leland Ryken wrote an earlier book called The Word of God in English, dealing with a similar topic. Ryken was on the committee for the ESV, primarily for matters of English style, I think. He is (or was) an English professor at Wheaton. I thoroughly enjoyed his other book and I expect this one is excellent also.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

[jon]

I enjoy reading, Ryken. His Words of Delight was one of my first exposures to a literary interpretation of the text. I haven't read scripture the same since.

[Doug]

What? Know ye not that thou must use the King's English when thou readest God's Holy Writ to thy congragation? How dare ye use any other Text other than that of the KING JAMES? Thou art an Heretic!

[Doug]

BTW, for those who do not know me, the above comment is purely sarcastic. Please, do not take me seriously. Thank you!

[David]

Dear Jon:

In Re: Bible Translations:

Perhaps you and your readers have some thoughts on the following. I have a friend and brother in Christ who has embraced this “King James Only” movement (“KJOM”). We batted back and forth a few emails on the topic because I wanted to understand the whole thrust behind the whole KJOM.

The dialogue stalled, and I felt he was being a bit strident and dogmatic on his position. I even tried to pepper the discussion with some dry humor by suggesting that this might be akin to the Christians for the Ethical Treatment of Animals versus the Purists over the Vinyl versus Leather bible-cover controversy. He was not amused.

In other words, is this a “core” issue or simply one where reasonable Christians can gently disagree?

I feel that from a strictly literary perspective the more "modern" translations without the stilted Elizabethan pronouns make for an easier read on, say, the historical books of the Old Testament; however, the poetic beauty of, for example, the Psalms, or the crisp meter of Proverbs, is utterly lost in the NIV. I have in my library at least five translations of the Bible, including a KJV, an NIV and an Amplified Bible, all of which I use. I also reference quite frequently Strong's concordance and other resources such as Vine's. Also along these lines there are novels in the Roman Catholic translation that even a good Protestant should read at least once.

So, do I need all these translations or just one good “essentially literal” version and ask the Holy Spirit for guidance? Some translations are, in my opinion, utterly appalling, such as “The Message.” And I am aware of the NASB but have never really studied it. Is one method of translation superior to another? Professor Ryken’s approach looks like it has a lot of merit:

Take Proverbs 11:25. Can you see how one can go from this:
“The liberal soul shall be made fat: and he that watereth shall be watered also himself.” (KJV)

To this:

“The generous man will be prosperous,
And he who waters will himself be watered.” (NASB)

To this:
“The liberal person shall be enriched, and he who waters shall himself be watered.” (Amplified)

To this: “The politically liberal shall be blessed.” (The Super Trendy PC Bible – not yet published)

[jon]

David,

I can't help but notice that my readers are not jumping into the fray on this one. It is an oft-discussed topic that frankly wears the participants out. I'll just offer a couple comments.

Personally, I don't have much patience for the KJOM. One of the lesser reasons we moved to the NASB was to just nip that controversy in the bud. For some, whom I have heard classified as ONLY the King James, it is a life or death issue where oft times the KJV takes precedence over the original manuscripts. Their position borders on heresy. For others, whom I have heard classified as King James Only, there is simply a preference for the beauty and familiarity of the KJV.

I prefer a literal translation of the text, but unlike you, I like the dynamic equivalence that often renders figures of speech more accurately in the poetical books. We live at a wonderful point in history where we can open up several versions of scripture in front of us at once (whether electronically or literally). We have numerous tools that enable us to mine in the original languages even though our knowledge might be rudimentary. It seems shortsighted at best, and foolish at worst, to ignore such wonderful gifts from God's hand at this point in history.

So my recommendation for the layperson is to read from several translations and do as much research in the original as you can. Web sites like "Blue Letter Bible" make this very doable.

[Doug]

David,

I have people who are close to me that are KJV Only types. I am thankful (so far) that the sniping has not gotten to the point of breaking fellowship. I fear, one day, it will.

Check out this website:

http://www.kjvonly.org/

These Godly men will answer any of your questions within their articles.

Also, DA Carson's book, "A Plea for Realism", or James White's book, "The King James Only Controversy" are great resources for the layman (I am one) to see the error of the KJV Only philosophy.

Another great website (Jon has it on his left margin on this weblog) is James White's:

http://aomin.org/kjvo.html

And, BTW:

RE: "I even tried to pepper the discussion with some dry humor by suggesting that this might be akin to the Christians for the Ethical Treatment of Animals versus the Purists over the Vinyl versus Leather bible-cover controversy. He was not amused."

I am amused! That's pretty funny!

[pgepps]

Yeah, KJ-only-ism is ugly. There's no reason brothers shouldn't get along because one likes, or even has a reasoned argument in favor of, one translation or another.

I can think of reasons to prefer the NASB to the NIV, and reasons to prefer the NRSV to the NASB, and reasons to prefer the ESV to the NRSV, and so forth--but I still use ESV and/or NASB (depending on which program I open first) as my base English text, and never teach anything that I haven't *at least* done a sanity-check in the original languages (by looking at parts of speech, parallel usages in similar passages, etc). I'm no Greek/Hebrew scholar, but I'm not willing to get bushwhacked by an artefact of the translation process, either, if I can help it (there are few times this would matter, but knowing me, I'd pick one that's important and muff it).

That some folks make KJ-Onlyism a test of faith and/or fellowship is schismatic and, I think, grieves God. Of course, until they see the issue clearly, it's impossible to persuade them of that, so you may have to let them go their ways and repent at leisure. Sad, sad, silly, stupid place to wreck your ship, though.

[[Oh--Doug: An thou writ'st in Elizabethan prose, see thou gett'st it right. Thou shalt not fail to use the appropriate forms of the verb, nor shalt thou inflect pronouns inappropriately, but shalt array them in the manner intended by the language in which thou art attempting to speak. An' thou gett'st it right, I shall no more bewray thee with thine impudence and incontinence in thy rash hasting to thine own ignorance's display.

PLEASE see the huge JUST KIDDING on that one. I wanted to use big words at the end, is all. OK? ;-) ]]

Take care,
PGE

[jon]

What cracks me up is when people start praying in thees, thous, you-s, us-ens, you-sens, y'alls, etc. It gets pretty ugly pretty quick.

[Doug]

Peter,

Sorry 'bout the poor grammar when it comes to Olde Anglish. I am but a poor associate degreed real estate agent, and wannabe historian (but not an historian of Olde Anglish).

Jon,

I pray in MODERN ENGLISH, and as you can see from Peter's retort, I do great harm to old English speech, but then again, that language (like Latin) is dead. The question
arises; why do people pray in "Old English"? Silly if you ask me.

I know some people who think we need to pray in old English because it's more reverent. What? Yep, you read it here, folks! I pray in modern English, and I have heard (through the grape-vine) that my praying is not reverent enough, and this is from (you guessed it) someone who is KJV Only. Obviously God knows just one language, and that's Elizabethan English!

[Jim]

"I have people who are close to me that are KJV Only types."

Doug, I am *NOT* KJV only. :)
I'm just cursed to almost always end up in a church that is (always only mildly so, but even that is frustrating at times.)

[Doug]

Not you, Jim. I really don't want to be specific on the people to whom I am referring who are KJV Only, and think my praying is not reverent.

[Dave]

Wow- now isn't this the kettle calling the pot black? There seems to be some pent up hostility here causing the "defenders of anti-legalism" and "defenders of anti-KJVOism" to be a little less than charitable.

"and I have heard (through the grape-vine) that my praying is not reverent enough" &
"and [they] think my praying is not reverent." and yet people who for one reason or the other choose to pray using some 'thee's' and 'thou's' are in turn mocked, by a pastor no less. Let's hope none of the flock that may be somewhat more vulnerable and sensitive happens to read that one. The way others pray is "silly" Doug?

For the record, I am not KJVO and prefer to compare among at least four different translations. Nowhere in those translations have I found justification for repaying "evil for evil", if indeed what has been leveled your way was evil to begin with.

I occasionally find myself, in my great longing to be with God and to not sin against Him, praying and referring to Him using Thee or Thou. I am sure that this is also in part because I hate the sin in this world to the point that I want to be as little like it as possible.

Do I accomplish anything by praying thus? I hope you will not mind if I choose a similar option as David did in 1 Chronicles 21:13 and let God Himself decide whether or not I am "silly".

btw- I am not angry for myself about this, for I could in one sense not care a whit whether or not any of you approves, but I have some dear friends in the Lord who choose to pray this way and I would stand by their side as far as necessary. I also assume that those posting here are the Lord's as well, so I cannot look the other way while you carry on like this.

The NEW Legalism- to look down on and condemn those who aren't as un-legalistic as I am. Not sure what the difference really is.

Proverbs 16:2
All a man's ways seem innocent to him, but motives are weighed by the LORD.

[jon]

Dave,

It's been awhile since we've been knocking this one around, but as is often the case in the blogworld, I think your are misreading the tone of the comments in this post. I don't know if you know the people involved in this discussion, but I can assure you that none of them takes the topic of Elizabethan English in the midst of praying that seriously nor or they trying to be cruel to those who do. These comments are made lightly here--note the use of words like: amused, funny, cracks me up, JUST KIDDING (in all caps)...etc. I don't believe anyone is actually being hostile or condemning, it is just a little humor and should be taken as such. We are smiling at the difficulty of trying to pray consistently in a language several hundred years old...very few people can do it well.

[David]

Jon,

I'm not sure that such an attitude relieves you of being responsible for what you say and write. Are we really not to consider in such a public forum that there will be those who will read such comments and, like me, not have the "inside scoop" on your alleged motives?

Simply put, when you say, "It gets pretty ugly pretty quick.", I fail to see the humor and your response seems a little disingenuous. The "just kidding" reference was made for a specific point ("JUST KIDDING on that **one**"), and the other words you refer to out of context do sound pretty harmless ("amused, funny, cracks me up"), but they take on a different meaning altogether when placed back in context:

"What cracks me up is when people start praying in thees, thous, you-s, us-ens, you-sens, y'alls, etc. It gets pretty ugly pretty quick."

Oh- NOW I see your point. Yeah, THAT IS pretty funny after all...I would suggest that if a forum like this Blog means that you have to take on such an inconsiderate approach, then maybe blogging isn't for the church after all.

Matthew 12:36-37
"But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment.

"For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."

I don't know- maybe instead of having a knee-slapping, good ol' time at the potential expense of others we should look for something else to do:

Philippians 2:3-4
Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.

[David]

And by the way,

"...very few people can do it well." ???

How do I become such a sure arbiter, able to judge the ability of others to pray with appropriate acceptability?

Luke 18:10-14
"Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.

"The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: 'God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector.

'I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.'

"But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, the sinner!'

"I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted."

Just so we are all on the same page- I did not come here to start an argument. If those who post here regularly believe that the doctrines found in Scripture that dictate the manner of how we live and treat each other do not apply in this Blog, then clearly I am out of line with my assertions, but I am unaware of the "doctrine of compartmentalization" that allows us to behave in such a fashion.

[jon]

David,

Thanks for your concern. I'm not going to spend any more words on this topic. Perhaps you should reconsider joining a conversation long over with people you don't know (or do you--difficult to know when one posts without a genuine e-mail address). Future anonymous postings will be deleted.

[David]

Jon,

I apologize- I did not realize that was a requirement.

djtuckerman@columbus.rr.com

David

[Doug]

Dave, maybe the next time I see you, we can get together so I can explain what I mean by "silly". It may take some time than this short blog offers to give a fuller explanation.

[jon]

Dave, who I do not know, was kind enough to e-mail me offline and I trust we are working toward an understanding.

[David]

All,

Maybe it would be beneficial if I defined what prayer means to me to help you understand why I am concerned about these comments.

I do not claim to have some corner on prayer that no one else has, but I do not understand how something so significant and so important and so personal, even in a public setting, could have such adjectives attached to it for ANY reason.

In this world we have the Word of God, the Holy Spirit, we have each other (the Body of Christ) and we have prayer. While I do not mean for this list to be all inclusive of everything the Lord has provided us with, these seem to be some of the most significant.

Do you long to be with the One you have not yet seen? Are you homesick for a place you have never yet been to? Prayer is one significant and personal way to approach and fellowship with God while we wait with longing to be with Him. No doubt there are many impostors all around us who pray for the attention it brings them, but it would be wrong to lump everyone who prays a certain way in with that group.

I am led to understand that because I do not have the full context of this conversation that I cannot appreciate what is going on here. The problem remains that this is all I and anyone else who visits this page has to work with. I do not think that it is therefore unreasonable to expect some care to be taken for us "newbies" who may stray your way.

I can understand such misunderstandings when it comes to the world looking in at what the church does. As far as they are concerned we are praying to an imaginary friend that exists only in our feeble minds. Such commentary on the prayer of others should not come from within the church, whatever the underlying motive is, except under completely different circumstances and with completely different intentions (Galatians 6).

Dave