Comments for Greyleads

Comment on Atheism – Celebrate Reason by Mariano

Mariano — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 02:47:37 +0000

With the bus ads reading “Atheism - celebrate reason” atheists have, again, come very close to quoting that which the Bible has stated for almost 3,000 years, “‘Come now, let us reason together,’ says the LORD (Isaiah 1:18).

Also, the supposed most erudite atheist in the world are gathering in Australia for their convention while refusing to debate Christians:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-34463-Albuquerque-Christian-Apologetics-Examiner~y2010m3d4-Atheism–celebrate-reason-while-absconding-from-reasoning

Reason? No, merely self-aggrandizing and self-professed pseudo-erudition.

Comment on Do we choose our beliefs? by Kathryn

Kathryn — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:09:42 +0000

Wow long time since i’ve read here…
i agree with this: “In reality, perhaps it is neither of these two extremes” and now i have to rush off to the station to pick up my brother so i’ll continue to chew over the rest of what you wrote as i go!

Comment on The Ascension: where did Jesus go? by bob

bob — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 22:23:56 +0000

Check out the different meanings of the word “up” in Acts 1:9-13. Use Strongs Concordance. They don’t all mean upwards - like climbing the stairs.

Comment on The Ascension: where did Jesus go? by bill mac leod

bill mac leod — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 16:02:24 +0000

Jesus died andwent to heaven to join His Father . Would you not do the same

Comment on The Ascension: where did Jesus go? by Sananda

Sananda — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 00:34:38 +0000

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. - Arthur C. Clarke.

Perhaps the reason he went up is because he was from up… he and his kind came here to teach mankind… perhaps we are their experiment and they care for us just as we care for those under our protection…

It is just as plausible as these spirits from another dimension, who surely would not have had to go up to go home?

Comment on I want it, I deserve it: Why Lou Richards is being arrogant by Jon Hoevenaars

Jon Hoevenaars — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 23:04:45 +0000

Surely Lou deserves a box of Krispy Kreme original glazed doughnuts or a Stanley Fat Max!

Comment on Amusing ourselves to death: was Orwell or Huxley right? by David (required)

David (required) — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 03:54:39 +0000

I always preferred “Brave New World” to “1984″ for that exact reason…even though 1984 did seem equally possible, it seemed much more reasonable that Brave New World was in fact a reality…

Comment on Identity in a Multicultural Society by Adam

Adam — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 13:41:39 +0000

I think I understand what you are getting at. However, I don’t see why the outcome of one would mean the non-outcome of the others. Society is complex. So much so, that all three (and I dare say other possible outcomes) occur simultaneously and in varying degrees. Culture is generally not so monolithic. As a consequence, within a ‘culture’, there are various forces working towards an understanding of other cultures, just as there are opposing forces who would prefer to keep to themselves (or what have you).

But to return to your question, I believe that we ought to be as tolerant as we are able. Tolerance is not some form of radical relativism, but a recognition of the humanity that we all share. ‘You have beliefs. I have beliefs. Your beliefs are different to my beliefs…. um, what to do? I say! I’ll be tolerant of your beliefs if your tolerant of mine! And so long as neither of our beliefs causes anyone harm, then I shall respect you for having them’. Tolerance seems to work best when it is reciprocated. It is proactive, not defensive. Really, it is summed up by the saying: ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’.

I tend to think (or hope) that tolerance is really what any democratic society is founded on. Thus, when other cultures enter our own multi-cultural society, we expect them to be tolerant towards members of our society. I tend to reject the view that suggests that, if we tolerant others, we are siding with an other’s personal choice or particular value. This is simply untrue. Tolerance means that we are upholding the same political freedoms that allow for everyone’s beliefs - not just my own. Ultimately, it is for the people of a democratic society to collectively decide the degree of freedom, and congruently, the limitations of what will and won’t be tolerated.

So, my answer. We ought to be proactive in understanding each other. We cannot afford to dismiss other people’s values or beliefs as ‘wacky’ or ‘primitive’ or ‘demonic’. We must delve a little deeper. If something doesn’t make sense to you straight away (and I’m not talking to anyone specifically here), we must look a bit longer until it does.

Comment on TNIV going off the market by Simon

Simon — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 04:03:38 +0000

Well said in the last paragraph there. Everyone will probably need to read the last sentence a couple of times to get it!

I acknowledge that the NLT is a paraphrase-translation. I wouldn’t use it as my key source if I was expositing the scriptures. I have found, though, that at small group, when the NLT is read out alongside the NIV or ESV, it is very vivd and helpful alternative text. I still really like it, and if it’s used alongside a NIV, ESV or NRSV, I think it can be a really excellent tool for understanding and illuminating difficult passages.

Comment on TNIV going off the market by Roger

Roger — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 03:31:35 +0000

The NIV is one of the few fresh translations of the collected manuscripts; it stands as one of the better, using more modern scholarship in its translation. It is also a paraphaistic translation, which is somewhat required to properly translate different idioms which would otherwise make little sense in English.

Conversely the ESV “stands in the classic mainstream of English Bible Translations of the past [500 years]” (Preface to the ESV), and as such draws on more than one “understanding”. This helps to iron out the “excesses” that you might get from a single (and particularly geared) translation; but will lack the punch and effectiveness of something more contemporary, like the NIV.

As I mention excesses here I point out that the TNIV, while continuing in the newer translation, got a little distracted with interpretation, so much so that it “divided the evangelical Christian community” (http://bit.ly/wXdss), something I have longed to be more widely recognised of the TNIV. Its a-gender agenda (the word play was mostly accidental) only added fuel to an already out-of-control fire, and as such I am glad that it is being removed from the market.

The NLT and similar translations offer good insights, however I agree entirely with Moo that it is important to retain “God’s unchanging word”, thus a version which seeks to be very contemporary will perhaps over-translate certain passages, and should not be used as a foundation for teaching. There is a difference between using contemporary language and idioms, and overloading it with contemporary rhetoric and concepts.

I use the ESV, because I enjoy the style of English which is less contemporary and more vivid, I think, than the NIV; though my respect for both is definately growing the more I study NT Greek. The only “translation snobbery” I will not be ashamed of, is making sure you have a good translation and not an interpetation; the inspired word of God, not the altered word of that guy.