An Inconsistent Pentecostal View of the Bible

Brian Fulthorp:

This is a really really good blog post on some problems within certain sectors of the Charismatic movement. While the two men mentioned in this post are identified with the Word of Faith movement, this kind of thinking is not uncommon in wider Charismatic and or Pentecostal circles. I’ve seen some of it in the Assemblies of God even though WOF Theology is not something the AG endorses. Again. This is a good post!

Originally posted on Hye Sung Francis:

From Kenneth Copeland Ministries' facebook page

From Kenneth Copeland Ministries’ Facebook page

I saw the graphic above pop up on my newsfeed on Facebook and was beyond disturbed. There is a lot that can be critiqued about these men’s theology (both Kenneth Copeland and Jesse Duplantis), but having the presence and person of God equated with the Bible was not something I’d expect from fellow Charismatics. Usually these sorts of statements, though not usually as bibliolatrous, are made to battle the over-experientialism of Charismatics and Pentecostals perceived by cessationists and non-charismatic Evangelicals. In a conversation with Rachel Held Evans, Jonathan Martin remarked, and I believe accurately, that “Pentecostals are not fundamentalists that speak in tongues,” and he went on to explain that the distinct Pentecostal worldview that creates an urgent people empowered by the Spirit to bring action and make known the Kingdom of God on earth. That being said, this quote from Jesse…

View original 606 more words

50 years of Bible Translation

Doug Moo reflects on 50 years of Bible translation since the days of James Barr.  He also reflects on the history and development of the NIV translation of the Bible.  Read ‘We still Don’t Get It: Evangelicals and Bible Translation Fifty Years after James Barr.’

Here is one good quote:

“Specifically, I highlight three basic and generally agreed-upon linguistic principles that have too often been ignored in modern Bible translation. First, linguistics is not a prescriptive but a descriptive enterprise; second, meaning resides not at the level of individual words but at the level of collocations of words in clauses, sentences, and ultimately discourses; and third, the meaning of individual words is expressed not in a single word gloss but in a semantic field.”

Blessings,

Tacky is as tacky does…or doesn’t

Brian Fulthorp:

My friend Pastor Scott is blogging now.

Originally posted on Theology At My Fingertips:

My father had a way with words; he could make his point known but often in such a low-key way that if you weren’t paying close attention, you might never know he had made any comment whatsoever. When the annoying and frustrating things of life tried to clutter up his day, he would view them not with some kind of pejorative or foul oath, but by hanging on them this handle: “tacky.”  To him, tacky was the essence of uncouth, or rude, or unseemly, something out of place or out of manners. If someone displayed angry behavior towards him, his view of it was “So-and-so managed to get really tacky today.”  Occasionally a colleague would tell a slightly off-color joke; dad would label the story as “tacky” until the same story would wind up being repeated by the same person, whereupon that person became “tacky”.

There was a time in…

View original 968 more words

Gordon Fee’s Three Reasons for Revising His 1 Corinthians Commentary

Brian Fulthorp:

For those interested….

Originally posted on New Leaven:

51upc20TiXL__SY344_BO1,204,203,200_Gordon Fee’s majestic 1 Corinthians commentary has been revised, which was originally published in 1987.

The following is Fee’s Preface to the revised (second) edition:

It has now been over twenty-five years since the first edition of this commentary appeared, Much has happened during this quarter century, besides the author’s (who was also the former editor of the series) growing long of tooth! There are two primary reasons for the present revision:

First, the original commentary was based on the 1978 edition of the NIV, which was probably more poorly done in this letter than anywhere else in the entire canon. I came to discover the reasons for this when in 1990 I was invited to join the Committee for Bible Translation (the committee solely responsible for the translation itself). This committee of fifteen, at that time composed of nine OT scholars and six NT, had been purposely brought together…

View original 466 more words

Kindle commentary sale: 1 Corinthians (NAC)

1 CorinthainsNot sure how long this will be available for $2.99, but it just came out and you may want to take advantage and get it. Mark Taylor on 1st Corinthians via @amazonkindle http://t.co/MsjLE9t1Yt

Not to mention that all of the commentaries (Kindle Edition) in the NIV Application Commentary set are on a $4.99 and down sale until the 27.   If I was y’all I’d pick a few up and especially the one with WIlson’s work on the Psalms (Psalms Volume 1 )

Have fun and blessings!

You’re Restricted!….

Dave Black linked to an article that the late Rod Decker had written for the Baptist Bulletin asking ‘Can We Trust the ESV Bible?‘  In the article he discusses the basic essence of BIble translations and a little bit of history leading up to the ESV, which I thought was interesting because he stated that the ESV is actually a revision and not a translation per se, such as the NIV.  The ESV is a revision of the RSV whereas the NIV is a direct translation of Hebrew and Greek.

But the reason for the blog title is he talks briefly about the form and function of translations highlighting formal and functional equivalent translations.  These two are not contradictory to each other but merely reflect differences in styles and really preferences as it relates to traditions.   He then gives an example:

Consider the following illustration of these differences in a difficult verse. If we were to translate word-for-word, we might read 2 Corinthians 6:12 like this: “Not you are being restricted in us you are being restricted but in the intestines of you.” Not very helpful, is it?! The KJV reads, “Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.” That’s not much clearer. The ESV reads, “You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections.” Though only minor changes are made, translating the reference to the intestines into the metaphorical meaning of the expression (“affections”) helps the reader understand more of what Paul meant—but what is the “restriction”? The NIV becomes clearer: “We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us.” In this case the form of the original is not as evident, but the meaning is understandable. On the functional end of the spectrum, we might read something like this: “If there is a problem between us, it is not because of a lack of love on our part, but because you have withheld your love from us” (New Living Translation).

Decker is using this example to highlight the differences between working to get the form (literalness) of the text or word and working to get the function (meaning) of the text or the word. He avers that the ESV succeeds at improving the form and function of the original KJV upon which the ESV is based, and I would agree.  However, I admit, I have a preference for emphasizing the functionality of translations rather than the form of them.  Why?  Because I think functionality gets at the heart of what should be happening in a translation – people need to know not just what the Bible says, but also what it means and I personally believe that is accomplished best through a functional equivalence translation style, something mediating between the NIV and the NLT.  But again, that is my personal preference, but one I think is supported by the quote above.  As Decker notes, the ESV is not an unusable translation, it does accomplish the purpose for which it is intended, however,

I remember in my 2nd year Greek classes (we did what were called “inductive studies in the Greek” which was really a kind of surveying how to do exegesis in the various genre of the NT, well first semester we translated 1-2 Thessalonians, few chapters out of John and some others I can’t remember) and then the next semester we did translations out of the Gospels, Paul’s letters, the Epistles, and Revelation covering exegetical issues in each) but the thing I remember was Ben Aker saying that in first year Greek students spend time being form chasers, but that beyond that students of NT Greek should become function chasers.  And I think that is how it should be in translation – going for the function moreso than the form.

What Is In a Day? Genesis One

Brian Fulthorp:

Great post here by my friend Rick on the use of Day in Genesis 1 (a very controversial passage in the Bible, lol)

Originally posted on W.onderful W.orld of W.adholms:

clocksI just realized I have never posted anything (other than my thesis) dealing with the range of meaning for the Hebrew  יוֹם (yom) which is often translated as something like “day”. With all of the kerfuffles (that is a specific theological term ;-) ) over the word “day” in Genesis 1, I thought I’d do a brief post on my own work on this on what has been taught to my students (and will be tomorrow morning as well).

So here is the semantic range (the range of meanings based upon usage of the Hebrew term) as I have worked it out from my reading of the text of Genesis 1 (which is a distinct literary unit from verse 1 to either chapter 2, verse 3 or possibly verse 4):

  1. Period of light (v.5)
  2. Period of alternating darkness/light (vv.5, 8, 13)
  3. Cultic festivals (v.14)
  4. A twenty-four hour period (v.14…

View original 479 more words