Blue Cord

My post a few weeks ago on God’s Hands generated quite a bit of discussion. I wanted to address some of the things that people have said.

Several people pointed out that there is a John James on staff at Channel 36 and accused me of either not having my facts straight or of lying. But I never claimed that John James was not on staff at Channel 36. Instead, I merely said that I could not find reference to him on their web page. And whether or not there is a John James on staff is not a part of my argument against the picture being valid. Instead, I mentioned John James and several other facts in a footnote where I discussed the fact that having actual places and names is unusual for a hoax such as this. But my argument that this is a hoax is based on other factors.

Second, Linda O says:

It doesn’t matter to me that the picture is not real, God is, and this can happen in the skies. We are all looking for signs and wonders, and I think this is one to remind us of how great God really is.

Linda’s statements miss the point. Yes, God is real. Yes, God could make this happen in the sky. I have not questioned either of those propositions. But the issue is whether this particular picture is real. All of the evidence points to it being a fake. And if it is a fake, then it is not evidence of how great God is. It reminds us of how some people are willing to manipulate images in Photoshop or GIMP in order to fool people. And, perhaps more importantly, it reminds us of how quick some people are to accept images like this when the image serves to reinforce their beliefs.

Manipulated images are quite easy to do, but they are hardly evidence of reality. Does anyone think that the image at the top of this post really indicates that my daughter can shoot lightning from her fingertips? Or does the picture to the right show that my son can conjure a ball of light? (You can click on either picture to see a larger version.) We know that God can work wonders, but that does not mean that we have to accept every picture as evidence of that.

What amazes me the most about all of this is that even though my original post contained a link that showed the original picture without “God’s hands” and a statement by the person who manipulated the image, people are still willing to believe this is evidence of God.

As everyone who reads the Bible in translation knows, there are variations among the different versions. No two translations ever produce the exact same English rendering of a particular passage. I am well aware of this, but found myself flummoxed by it the other day.

I was looking for the verse in the Bible that says, “Love keeps no record of wrongs.” I was fairly certain that it was in 1 Corinthians 13, so I pulled out the ESV that I had next to me. The phrase I sought was no where to be found. So, I reached for the NRSV on my shelf. It was still not there. Figuring I must have misremembered the reference, I started up my Logos software to find the passage. I searched for “record” in the NRSV, but got no hits. I searched for “wrongs,” but none of those passages was remotely similar to the passage for which I was looking.

It wasn’t until I pulled up 1 Corinthians 13 in all versions that I found the problem. I was right: the verse I was seeking is in 1 Corinthians 13. But only the NIV translates this particular phrase as “Love keeps no record of wrong.” Here is how the last phrase in v.5 is rendered in different translations:

“It is not irritable or resentful” - ESV

“[It] thinketh no evil” - KJV

“[It] does not take into account a wrong suffered” - NASB

“It keeps no record of wrongs” - NIV

“It is not irritable or resentful” - RSV and NRSV

I found it interesting that the version I remembered is the NIV. That is the translation I used in high school and college. I switched to the RSV in seminary, and then to the NRSV when that came out. The NRSV is my primary text now, although I have a small ESV next to my bed. Apparently all the memorization I had done in high school took precedence in my memory over the academic work I have done since then.

A quick look at the Greek text I have on hand suggests that the NIV and NASB come the closest to the Greek. I suspect that there may be a textual variant here that the ESV and NRSV are following, because I don’t see how they can get “irritable or resentful” from the Greek, but then again NT is not my specialty. I don’t have the tools here in my apartment to check out any textual variants, but perhaps some other biblioblogger who reads this blog can explain where the ESV and NRSV get their reading.

Follow up: Rick Brannan at PastoralEpistles.com and Rico Blog sent me an e-mail to let me know that “resentful” is merely a one-word translation of the longer phrase that the NIV translates as “It keeps no record of wrongs.” The NRSV usually doesn’t do things like that, so it hadn’t occurred to me (though it should have). “Resentful” seems a fairly poor way of rendering what the Greek says. I suppose that someone who pays attention to how they have been wronged would be resentful, but that is not the first word that would have come to mind. Thanks for the solution, Rick!  Thanks also to Doug Chaplin, who left the same info in a comment while I was updating the post with the information Rick sent.

Last night I took my kids to see the Nashua Pride vs. the Can-Am Grays, two teams in the independent Can-Am league. The Grays won 5-3 playing as the home team, even though the game was in Nashua. The Grays are a travel team and don’t have a home field.

During the 7th inning we did the traditional stretch, singing “Take Me Out to the Ballgame.” As always, I was annoyed by those around me who thought the lyrics were “. . . buy me some peanuts and Cracker Jacks . . .” instead of “Cracker Jack.”¹ But even more bothersome was the singing of “God Bless America,” a practice that some ballparks have adopted since the attacks on 9-11.

In and of itself, I have no problem with the song. As a hymn, it asks God to bless America. Granted, it is worded as a command to God to bless America, but that is poetic license that can be excused. And while we should be praying for God to bless the whole world, asking on behalf of our own nation is hardly problematic. My problem with its use at baseball games, however, is that it smacks of civil religion.

The problem has little to do with the words of the song, which merely ask for God’s blessing and guidance. The problem comes from the effect of the song. When “God Bless America” is sung during a time of war, it has the effect of implying that God is on our side in this war. This is especially the case when politicians and pundits are calling the current war a war between good and evil. But God does not take sides with individual nations. God is with those who do good on both sides and with those who suffer on both sides. If America could claim to be 100% good, we might have a chance for claiming that God is on our side, but that is hardly the case.

For those that doubt that this is a confusing of religion with politics, take a look at what happens when “God Bless America” is sung. The announcer asks people to rise and remove their hats. This is something that is done when the flag is presented. And many of the people around me at the game last night faced the flag and placed their hand over their hearts. This is a salute to the flag, a symbol of our nation, but it was done while a prayer to God was being offered, i.e., the singing of “God Bless America.”

It can be argued that singing “God Bless America” at public events merely has the effect of unifying people as a nation. If that is the case, the same thing could easily be accomplished by singing a song that doesn’t invoke God, such as “My Country ‘Tis of Thee” (which doesn’t mention God in the first verse). I am very patriotic and love it when they sing the National Anthem at the start of ballgames, but I don’t like the mixing of patriotism and religion. My devotion to God takes precedence over my loyalty to the United States, and I don’t like it when the former is confused with the latter.

1. The name of the product is Cracker Jack. It is not plural, and the actual lyrics reflect this. [back]

Last December 16th I posted about my grandmother, who turned 100 on that day.  Today is exactly six months later, and I got word this morning that she passed away around 8:00 am.  Her only surviving son, Boyce Wilson, was with her when she died.   She passed away peacefully.

She had been suffering from poor circulation in her leg, which had allowed an infection to develop.  The doctors had suggested amputating the leg, but because of her age she and the family decided against it.

I last saw her three weeks ago when I took a trip to TN to visit my mother.  We went over to NC to visit Edna in her nursing home.  She was very frail and her foot was hurting her quite a bit, but she was still very alert.  She had been moved into a nursing home just last year.  Other than clothes, she had very few of her own things with her.  But one thing she made sure she had with her was her Bible, which was sitting by her bedside.

One thing I always remember from my childhood is that she always read her Bible in the morning (which for her started around 5:00 am).  Her Bible always had the Sunday School quarterly in it.  And the first time I ever read Isaiah and Jeremiah straight through was when I was spending two weeks with her one summer.  I was in high school and he just saved up enough money to buy my own NIV, and I made it my summer project to read the major prophets.  I remember sitting at her table and reading the Bible while she did the same.

It is amazing how much this woman knew about the Bible.  One Christmas, someone got me a Bible trivia game.  While I was at Edna’s house for our family Christmas gathering, we sat down to play it.  The rest of use were playing the game on teams.  Edna wasn’t playing, but every now and then she would pass through the room.  When she did, we would ask her a question, which she invariably answered correctly.  Eventually, we put a token on the board for her.  Even though she was on a team by herself and did not get questions as often as the rest of us, she won by a large margin.

I encourage you to read the post from last December when I gave an account of her life.  She was a wonderful woman and a strong Christian.  She will be greatly missed and fondly remembered.

Yesterday I posted something on intelligent design.  My intent was not to get into a large debate about it.  Instead, it was merely meant as an aside to get something off my chest.  If I were going to debate the intelligent design crowd, I would take them to task for badly misinterpreting and misappropriating the Bible.

I provoked a couple of responses.  Metacatholic made some good points about my interpretation of the teleological argument.   Then there was Island, who seems to think ad hominem attacks are the way to go.  I wanted to address several things that he said, and then I will drop the topic altogether.

In response to my statement that the size of the universe makes it likely that the exact conditions for life would be found in a large number of places, Island said:

No, the observation comes from physicists… that the observed configuration is **completely unexpected** by any natural model that we have ever been able to derive… in a manner that is EXTREMELY pointed toward the production of carbon based life, over a very fine region of the observed universe.

That, of course, does not negate my point.  A “very fine region of the observed universe” would still be a large number of planets capable of sustaining life like ours, not to mention other forms of life.  That was precisely my point.  Even if the chances are a trillion to one, the fact that there are 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the universe means that there will be a large number of stars with planets similar to ours.

In response to my statement that Einstein’s theories imply that multiple universes may exist, Island said:

No, that comes originally from the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Einstein’s theory most naturally extends to predict one single finite closed spherical universe.

The “many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics” is a result of Einstein’s theories.  Einstein himself did not make this leap, but many scholars have built on his work and come to that conclusion.  If Island does not think those scientists are correct, that is fine, but it doesn’t change the fact that these theories are a result of Einstein’s work.

Island ends by saying:

I have an observation though… since your facts are so far off the mark, you end up projecting the image of a rabid atheist who doesn’t care about the facts any more than a young-earth creationist does, rather than an agnostic who would accept proof of whatever if they saw it.

This is a rather odd comment, since Island has not show that any, let alone all, of my facts are off the mark.  And I hardly think I come across sounding like a rabid atheist, especially since I stated that I believe in God.  The amount of theology discussed on this blog would also seem to argue against such an impression.  But, I could be wrong.  It is hard to predict how one sounds to other people.

A word of advice to Island: if you want people to take you seriously in debates, it is wise to avoid accusing people of not caring about the facts just because they happen to get some facts wrong (or if you think they have gotten some facts wrong).  And personal attacks are never appropriate.  While they may make you feel good, they do not add to your argument.