Spurgeon on Gossip

Great quotes from Spurgeon on gossip provided by Justin Taylor ... but more specifically, the sin of "listening to gossip": http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2011/12/26/the-sin-of-listening-to-gossip/

Quote on Gossip

Gossip is what no one claims to like, but everybody enjoys.
-Joseph Conrad

Look inside yourself ... why do you enjoy gossip? What are you feeling when you share it? What sensations come over you? What need are you trying to fulfill? 

Quote on Gossip

Fire and swords are slow engines of destruction, compared to the tongue of a Gossip.
-Richard Steele

A reminder of James 3 ... so powerful is the tongue, so destructive is gossip, it is to be feared, avoided at all cost. And I speak as one who has gossiped and who has been gossiped about ... it destroys both ways.

Quote on Gossip

Anyone who has obeyed nature by transmitting a piece of gossip experiences the explosive relief that accompanies the satisfying of a primary need.
-Primo Levi

This is an interesting thought ... coming from an atheist. He is saying that people "obey nature" when they gossip. There is this urge in the soul of unsanctified people, those that have not yielded this area of their lives to be conformed into the image of the Son, to transmit information, gossipy information. The urge is so powerful, that when they release the information, Levi says there is an "explosive relief." It's this explosive relief that makes gossip so powerful to the speaker, so addictive.

Quote on Gossip

All the gossip and craziness becomes a kind of sustained narrative which, in turn, can become history. It's scary.
-Barbara Kruger

Quote on Gossip

Ah, well, the truth is always one thing, but in a way it's the other thing, the gossip, that counts. It shows where people's hearts lie.
-Paul Scott

The Chinese Underground Church and Hermeneutics

A Chinese Proverb states: "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

I was contacted two weeks ago by a friend who runs a missions organization. When he was at a conference in November, he ran into a couple from the underground church in China. They had been brought over to the U.S. by a parachurch group for training and discipleship, only to find out that the group was a cult. So he took them away from the cult and spent two week training them. He videotaped all the lessons with a translator present. The couple and another missionary will be bringing the videos back to the underground church in China and they will be spreading them throughout the country. He asked me to do one day on hermeneutics. So last Thursday morning I drove up and taught all day. I covered basic principles of interpretation, the hermeneutical journey (the steps according to Grasping God’s Word), and genre specific principles (Gosples, letters, parables, and OT law). I think it went very well. I had never taught through a translator before, but the translator did an excellent job. Please pray for the couple as they continue being discipled.

What an honor it was to meet this couple and open God's Word to them. I was very confused about how to approach some of the hermeneutical issues I wanted to address since I didn't know anything about Mandarin. I had a section on "pronouns," but I didn't know if their language used pronouns! I had a section on active and passive verbs, but I didn't know if their language did that! The translator was exceptional and very helpful in these areas ... and many others (they do use pronouns and have active and passive verbs). I was able to use the Chinese Bible I have from Bibleworks and put the verses I was talking about on a screen so they could read them as I taught. Praise God for Bibleworks!!! (I've said that many times!)

My prayer is that the people who watch the video will learn to did into God's Word themselves, that they will search the Scriptures thoroughly, that they will be diligent, yet cautious, that their time in the Word will lead to a renewed mind, and thus, transformation. May they learn and practice digging deep into God's Word for themselves, and not only depend upon others to feed them.

ETS San Francisco

Good conference this year in San Francisco. Craig Blomberg's paper on Jesus as Purifier in John's Gospel was excellent (as expected), Alan Tomlinson's presentation on researching backgrounds for New Testament studies on the internet was very helpful, and the dialogue on the spectrum of Evangelicalism was enlightening. Had some great conversations with men from LeTourneau, Oklahoma Baptist, Biola, and Moody (Spokane). Logos had a very persuading pitch on their product ... now if I can just master the software! Almost died on a San Francisco trolley car (that's another story for another day).

The vehicle that almost took my life ...

I hope that those of you who went were edified as well.

The Gospel Coalition

I was asked to write a blog post for The Gospel Coalition. It went up today. You can read it here

For information about TGC, see here. Leaders on their council include D. A. Carson, Matt Chandler, Mark Dever, Mark Driscoll, Tim Keller, Al Mohler, and John Piper.

Analogy for Bible Translations: Golf

I'm not an avid follower of golf, but it appears to me that there is a parallel between Bible translation philosophy and golf. Let me illustrate ...

A few years ago, long before the scandal, the two main rivals in golf were considered to be Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson. Tiger and Phil would battle it out and a golf tournament, and Tiger would typically win. There were "Tiger" fans and "Phil" fans. I was listening to a golf commentator on my car radio one day explaining that many golf fans were tired of Phil "laying up" and not "going for it." See, when faced with a difficult shot, Tiger would way the options and possibilities and, many times, go for it. He might try to clear the lake to make the green at a difficult angle, rather than just try to get close to the green and then chip on. Phil's pattern was to avoid chances and lay up. Since Tiger was usually successful when he went for the green, he would win.

Bible translations have a tendency to either "go for it" or "lay up." Essentially literal translations tend to stay ambiguous and not "go for the green" like others. So the Young's Literal Translation hardly ever "goes for it". The New American Standard Bible and the King James Version also have a strong tendency to "lay up." The benefit is that they are less likely to explicitly mislead their readers ... they won't end up in the "translational sand traps" as often. Translations that are essentially functional equivalent in philosophy typically "go for it." They attempt to import much more interpretation into the text than more formal translations. The New Living Translation seems to relish the opportunity to go for the green on most shots.

Translations that are in the middle, the NET Bible and NIV for example, try to weigh how likely their interpretations are before making them explicit in a translation. Listening to Moo at the LU Symposium, for example, he said that every commentary he owned on Colossians agreed with the NIV's rendering. The NIV committee was so confident in their interpretation that they saw no reason to "lay up" when all major scholars agree. The problem comes when the NIV, NLT, etc., tries for the green but lands in the sand trap. Teachers can get weary of disagreeing with the translation they teach from. So having a translation that leaves the interpretive options more open can be easier to teach from because you don't have to "correct" them.

I like watching a golfer who goes for the green. When he hits it right, it's a thing of beauty. I love reading translations that "go for the green," even if it means that at times they land in the "translational sand trap." However, when I teach, I prefer using a translation that I don't have to disagree with so often. I prefer teaching from something that might tend to "lay up" as it actually makes my job easier rather than more difficult. I might have to explain more things, but that's easier than trying to explain to a group of students why the translation I'm using is "wrong".

So, what kind of translation do you like to teach from? Tiger or Phil?

Example of someone "going for it".

NEW Conclusion to Bible Translation Study

UPDATE: 4/18/12
Another error has been found ... arghhh. See google doc for correct totals. Here's the skinny:

         The HCSB has the most points with 30. The NIV has the second most points with 27. The ESV (21) and NET (20) were close at 3rd and 4th. The NIV84 (12) was 5th place. Finally, the NASB did miserable in part 2, with a -3 score, lowering its total to 9: last place.

        Looking at the negative points should help distinguish between the HCSB, ESV & NIV and the NIV84 and NET. The ESV had the least amount of negative scores with 3. The HCSB was close behind with 4. The NIV had twice as many as the ESV with 6.

Here is the entire 34 part series in a google doc.

Licona Story on Christianity Today website

The controversy of Michael Licona's understanding of a passage in Matthew 27 as it relates to inerrancy is now on Christianity Today's website. Here are Al Mohler's thoughts. So, do you think Licona's view compromises inerrancy and undermines the resurrection or no? Why?

Why I am Not a Math Teacher: Corrections to my Translation Study

So, Chad pointed out some mistakes in my charts. First, I had reversed the translations of the NIV84 and the NIV in Galatians 3:28. So I had also reversed the scores. Second, I gave the NIV a point for Isaiah 7:14 ... and it mysteriously transformed into a "-1" in the next post. I really have no clue how that happened. So, I've had to adjust those posts and the conclusion. So, I'll reattach the conclusion with the new calculations and the google doc. Later today

Thanks Chad!

34 Part series in a pdf

Here is the 34 part series in a pdf google doc. Enjoy!

Analyzing Six Bible Translations: Part 34-Conclusion

Concluding Thoughts

Points for translations:

	ESV	NIV84	NIV	HCSB	NASB	NET
Part 1 TOTALS	13	12	11	10	10	8
Part 2 TOTALS	11	6	13	17	-3	9
TOTALS	24	18	24	27	7	17

The HCSB has the most points, with 27, and the ESV and NIV (fairly ironically) are tied with 24 points. The NIV⁸⁴ (18) and NET (17) were close together in 4^th and 5^th place. Finally, the NASB did miserable in part 2, with a -3 score, lowering its total to 7: last place.

Looking at the negative points should help distinguish between the ESV & NIV and the NIV⁸⁴ and NET.

Negative points:

	ESV	NIV84	NIV	HCSB	NASB	NET
Part 1 TOTALS	0	5	4	2	0	5
Part 2 TOTALS	3	7	4	2	11	7
TOTALS	3	12	8	4	11	12

The ESV had the least amount of negative scores with 3. The HCSB was close behind with 4. The NIV had twice as many as the HCSB with 8.

Placing these translations along a spectrum of “essentially word-for-word” to “essentially thought-for-thought,” we get this:

The NASB is the most literal/formal/word-for-word translation and it got the lowest score.

The NET, NIV, and NIV⁸⁴ were right in the middle, allowing for more interpretation to be involved in the translation process (therefore allowing for more opportunities for negative scores). The ESV and HCSB are between the mediating and word-for-word translations.

The NIV’s negative 8 score would make it hard for me to use it in teaching, since I appear to disagree with their translations too often. Therefore, the HCSB and ESV are the top two translations I’d recommend from this list.

Analyzing Six Bible Translations: Part 33-Observations on Part 2

Observations of Part 2

	ESV	NIV84	NIV	HCSB	NASB	NET
Josh 15:18	1	1	1	1	-1	1
2 Sam 20:20	1	1	1	1	1	-1
Isa 6:5	1	1	1	1	1	-1
Isa 7:14	1	1	-1	1	1	-1
Ezek 21:7	1	1	1	1	1	-1
Mal 2:16	1	-1	1	1	-1	0
Telling Time	0	1	1	1	0	1
Negative Particles	0	1	1	1	1	1
Textual Variants	1	1	0	-1	0	1
Matt 6:13	-1	1	1	1	-1	1
“the Jews” in FG	-1	0	1	0	-1	1
“signs” in FG	1	-1	1	1	1	-1
Gender issues	0	-1	1	1	-1	1
Matt 13:32	1	-1	1	1	-1	1
John 1:5	1	-1	1	1	-1	1
John 3:3	0	0	0	0	0	1
John 3:16a	0	0	0	1	0	1
John 3:16b	-1	1	1	1	-1	1
John 3:16c	0	-1	1	0	-1	1
Romans 3:22	1	1	1	1	1	-1
Romans 16:7	1	-1	-1	1	-1	1
2 Cor 11:25	0	0	1	1	0	1
Gal 3:28	1	1	-1	-1	-1	-1
1 Tim 2:12	1	1	-1	1	1	1
TOTALS	11	6	13	17	-3	9

The HCSB scored the highest again, with the NIV and ESV following. The NET and NIV⁸⁴ are 4^th and 5^th respectively, and the NASB came in last with a -3 score.

As said previously, “point totals” aren’t everything. Looking at just the “negative” scores, we get this:

HCSB=2

ESV=3

NIV=4

NET=7

NIV⁸⁴=7

NASB=11

Tomorrow will be part 34, the last post in this series.