Friday, November 6, 2009

The State of the American Woman

If you were a soldier in Joshua’s army and were commanded to butcher the Canaanite women and children, would you obey the order to plunge your sword into the belly of a pregnant woman?

No, but I would have followed the commands of God given through Joshua (which was to slay the city, yes). Don’t recall a command to “your sword into the belly of a pregnant woman”. I’m not sure how the spirit moved back then to know, but marching around a city that then spontaneously crashes to the ground might have been a clue, I suppose.

And EP, no, you would have followed the orders. It was the consensus of all of those people. That’s how reasoned atheist-based tendencies go. Atheistic reason would have been an arbitrary group consensus (actually, arbitrary isn’t fair. It would have been a man-based set of criteria to better that group). While I don’t understand why or really even how it was enacted, God worked to demonstrate it was He giving the command (the walls falling) that was to be followed. I don’t necessarily enjoy the thought of it, and, to be 100% honest, I can’t explain how or why it worked out the way it did.

And I’m with Lucas. I wasted a lot of time catching up on this. Shame on me.

New Comment
I just don’t see Christians as moral agents any more.

Very telling. As is the thought that somehow no-fault divorce is good. It may have some beneficial side effects (such as the ability to more easily get out of an abusive situation), but hey, pagan sacrifices also fed many people.

I think it’s also interesting that you levee an accusation against someone who likely can’t defend themselves.

I do second (or, at this point third/fourth) Darius and Ryan in that any abuse against you was unbiblical and sinful as was anyone who tried to explain it away. My heart and my prayers go out to you. I’m sure a little too late, you might say, but, still, they are extended.

New Comment

I am interested to listen to the interview with Packer where he says he doesn’t remember the statement against the TNIV, didn’t read “The Gender Neutral Bible Controversy” and conceded that (in essence) Grudem hadn’t studied Koine Greek.


New Comment
Hmm. Odd question and an odd quote by Packer given that Wallace was on the ESV translation team (who, I believe, is schooled in such) and Packer wasn’t (I believe). I’m very interested in hearing what else he said. Post a link to the interview, I’d be interested in hearing it.


New Comment
That should be Packer wasn’t on the translation team (I don’t believe he was, anyway). D’oh!


New Comment

Re: The Packer interview, not that it matters, but I must say I’m quite skeptical still. My observations (which could be misguided):

  • The quote about not having read Polythress and Grudem is lumped into a block that simply says it wasn’t recorded and there isn’t a quotation.

  • There are other he-said-a-bunch-of-stuff-here blocks.

  • I believe the classical Greek comment is in context of the general editors (oversight?), not the translation team (given there are other prominent classical greek students on the translation team).

  • Packer specifically commented on the statement against the TNIV. He said he didn’t remember who drafted the statement.

  • It is set against the backdrop that you have an admitted axe to grind with the interview (which, btw provides a bit of amusement given the questioning method that sounds similar to how the Pharisees asked questions.) .

  • All this compounded by the mysteriousness of "well, I don’t really know where the recording is."

While I stop well short of fabrication, I am still quite dubious. But, like I said, not that it matters.

I did enjoy the quote from Packer, when asked if the ESV translation may be upsetting to some pointed out that with translating the bible:

"...we are not talking about cultural expectations, are we?"

No comments: