I'm an addict

I would think that schooling would be enough to fill my mind with knowledge. I guess I found that not to be true.

I ordered a book a couple of days ago so I could join a voluntary reading group at the Seminary that starts on Friday, and then today, used a gift certificate to order 8 more avenues of religious knowledge for myself.

I'm excited for those things to arrive so I can delve my brain further into things that excite me.

Without them here today, and prolonging working on my homework, I was doing lots of statistics research. Looking at Barna's site finding random statistics on church and church growth, prayer, salvation, heaven and hell and the like, and then on the Gallup site, looking mainly at political things.

I can't imagine life without learning. Hopefully my mental capacity will continue to allow and enjoy new information.

Random stat of note, only 12% of blogs that are created get published to after three months. Count me one of the dedicated.

The Memory Game

I wish I had more scripture memorized. I am pretty good at big picture stuff, and narrowing down the main points that an author makes in a particular section of scripture, but haven't been as good as memorizing scripture.

I would love that the things that get stuck in my head be verses of scripture (because my mind had been focused on those things) instead of song lyrics or movie quotes. If I spent more time trying intentionally to memorize scripture, I'm sure that my mind would wander to that area of remembrance more. I just never know where to start. Do I make a list of helpful verses to have commit ed to memory, a list of popular verses, or do I try to memorize a large chunk of scripture.

What do you all think? What method should I try and why?

It just isn't for me

History, it doesn't excite me. I like researching people groups (like ancient near eastern Jews), but History as a movement just doesn't excite me.

I never enjoyed American History (it's the only class i've ever failed), and haven't been able to put the focus into Church History either. I just don't get fascinated by dates and names, even if they are of movements (like the church) that I deeply care about.

I just can't get my mind to be interested in learning things about the past that seem of little value to me.

I'd rather be writing a research paper on a particular person from history (the research for such a project would be compelling to me) than listening to someone describe how someone's political structure influenced the next political structure, which caused some ruler to be a jerk, which paved the way for some person to be a hero.

Uggghhhhhh.... History frustrates me.

Appreciating the Other Senses

I hear the Bible much differently than I read it.

For that reason, I have an audio Bible on cd. I listen to it in the car sometimes, but now have put sections of it on my ipod as a teacher is requiring that we listen to all four gospels at least once, separately from also reading them.

It is amazing how much easier it is for me to see the big picture of what an author, or section of scripture is saying when it is delivered in big chunks and without paragraph headings.

I recommend anyone try it sometime.

What's a boy to do

There isn't football tomorrow. Sunday afternoon and no football. My heart weeps. I don't know how to spend my time.

I need to study and read, but football has always been such a great excuse not to. I might actually get my first Sunday afternoon nap in a while.

Good thing next Sunday there is football again. (Go Colts)

From an interesting lunch conversation

I had lunch with some of the staff from my church this afternoon. One of the topics of conversation was the amount of time a pastor spends on writing and practicing his Sunday sermon. We talked of some of the pastors that work week to week, some that have their series and topics loosely planned at least 8 months in advance, all the way down to the guy who doesn't ever even start thinking about it until the Friday before (and he has a Saturday night service).

All of these methods were talked about with specific examples in mind.

What would you want/expect/hope of your pastor doing as they prepare their message?

8th Grade All Quarter

This quarter at school has reminded me of 8th grade all over again.

Hebrew has reached a point where a vast understanding of English grammar is necessary to properly translate. Most of the class seems lost on the English grammar terms.

Today in Gospels class, we worked on charting the flow of a text grammatically. I was asked by the person sitting next to me, "How can you tell the difference between the subject and the object?"

It amazes me. Not that people don't remember, because my wife ensures me I'm the rare case that still knows what the accusative case, or split infinitives are. I'm just surprised at how little today's students (as a whole, not individuals) know about their dominant language.

It isn't even that I think people should have lots of discussions throughout life so that they remember, I'm just surprised (because I hadn't really noticed it until discussions came up in Seminary) how little we know.

A Future Engagement

I meet with an adult small group from our church every Tuesday night. Sometime in February, I'll be preaching a sermon at that particular setting. The hosts of the small group have opened their home so that others who might want to come hear me preach would be able to. Think about it and get back to me somehow if you'd be interested in finding out the dates.

For random information, the purpose of this message's timing is because it is a requirement for a class that I'm taking. My plan originally was to speak at a young adults church service, but over the holidays, that entire service at that church got cancelled.

This sermon will be discussed and evaluated for my benefit after I preach it (without me present) and because of that the environment will be a little more sterile and academic than I would hope, but I'm excited already about what I'm going to say.

Unlike many times I've preached (that anyone besides my wife got a chance to hear), there is no limitation on what style or what text I preach from, so if you want to see a little more what my preaching style is like, this might end up being a good place to come.

Men and Women

A funny anecdote we read in a class today about the differences between men and women:

Let's say a guy named Roger is attracted to a woman named Elaine. He asks her out to a movie; she accepts; they have a pretty good time. A few nights later he asks her out to dinner, and again they enjoy themselves. They continue to see each other regularly, and after a while neither one of them is seeing anybody else.

And then, one evening when they're driving home, a thought occurs to Elaine, and, without really thinking, she says it aloud: "Do you realize that, as of tonight, we've been seeing each other for exactly six months?"

And then there is silence in the car. To Elaine, it seems like a very loud silence. She thinks to herself: Gee, I wonder if it bothers him that I said that. Maybe he's been feeling confined by our relationship; maybe he thinks I'm trying to push him into some kind of obligation that he doesn't want or isn't sure of.

And Roger is thinking: Gosh. Six months.

And Elaine is thinking: But hey, I'm not so sure I want this kind of relationship either. Sometimes I wish I had a little more space, so I'd have time to think about whether I really want us to keep going the way we are, moving steadily toward... I mean, where are we going? Are we just going to keep seeing each other at this level of intimacy? Are we heading toward marriage? Toward children? Toward a lifetime together? Am I ready for that level of commitment? Do I really even know this person?

And Roger is thinking: ...so that means it was ... let's see ... February when we started going out, which was right after I had the car at the dealer's, which means... lemme check the odometer... Whoa! I'm way overdue for an oil change here.

And Elaine is thinking: He's upset. I can see it on his face. Maybe I'm reading this completely wrong. Maybe he wants more from our relationship, more intimacy, more commitment; maybe he has sensed - even before I sensed it - that I was feeling some reservations. Yes, I bet that's it. that's why he's so reluctant to say anything about his own feelings. He's afraid of being rejected.

And Roger is thinking: And I'm gonna have them look at the transmission again. I don't care what those morons say, it's still not shifting right. And they better not try to blame in on the cold weather this time. What cold weather? It's 87 degrees out, and this thing is shifting like a stinking garbage truck, and I paid those incompetent thieves $600.

And Elaine is thinking: He's angry. And I don't blame him. I'd be angry too. I feel so guilty, putting him through this, but I can't help the way I feel. I'm just not sure.

And Roger is thinking: They'll probably say it's only a 90-day warranty. That's exactly what they're gonna say.

And Elaine is thinking: maybe I'm just too idealistic, waiting for a knght to come riding up on his white horse, when I'm sitting right next to a perfectly good person, a person I enjoy being with, a person I truly do care about, a person who seems to truly care about me. A person who is in pain because of my self-centered, schoolgirl romantic fantasy.

And Roger is thinking: Warranty? they want a warranty? I'll give them a worthless warranty. I'll take their warranty and stick it right up their...

"Roger," Elaine says aloud.

"What?" says Roger, startled.

"Please don't torture yourself like this," she says, her eyes beginning to brim with tears. "Maybe I should never have.. Oh, I feel so ...so..." (She breaks down, sobbing)

"What?" Roger asks.

"I'm such a fool," Elaine sobs. "I mean, I know there's no knight. I really know that. It's silly. There's no knight, and there's no horse."

"There's no horse?" says Roger.

"You think I'm a fool, don't you?" Elaine says.

"No!" says Roger, glad to finally know the correct answer.

"It's just that... it's that I... I need some time," Elaine says.

There is a 15-second pause while Roger, thinking as fact as he can, tries to come up with a safe response. Finally he comes up with one that he thinks might work: "Yes," he says.

Elaine, deeply moved, touches his hand. "Oh, Roger, do you really feel that way?"

"What way?" says Roger.

"That way about time," says Elaine.

"Oh," says Roger. "Yes."

Elaine turns to face him and gazes deeply into his eyes, causing him to become very nervous about what she might say next, especially if it involves a horse. At last she speaks: "Thank you, Roger," she says.

"Thank you," says Roger.

Then he takes her home, and she lies on her bed, a conflicted, tortured soul, and weeps until dawn, wheras when Roger gets back to his place, he opens a bag of Doritos, turns on the TV, and immediately becomes deeply involved in a rerun of a tennis match between two Czechoslovakians he never heard of. A tiny voice in the far recesses of his mind tells him that something major was going on back there in the car, but he is pretty sure there is no way he would ever understand what, and so he figures it's better if he doesn't think about it. This is also Roger's policy regarding world hunger.

The next day Elaine will call her closes friend, or perhaps two of them, and they will talk about this situation for six straight hours. In painstaking detail, they will analyze everything she has said and everything he said, going over it time and time again, exploring every word, expression and gesture for nuances of meaning, considering every possible ramification. They will continue to discuss this subject off an on for weeks, maybe months, never reaching any definite conclusion, but never getting bored with it either.

Meanwhile, Roger, while playing racquetball one day with a mutual friend of his and Elaine's, will pause just before serving, frown, and say, "Norm, did Elaine ever own a horse?"

For the Faithful

An e-mail I received this afternoon read as followed:

"Is there any way for others besides you to be able to see when new comments have been added to each chapter of the Bible blog? I went back today and checked all three chapters comments but that is going to get mighty cumbersome as the number of chapters gets bigger There were new comments on each of the three chapters that I had not seen so was wondering if there was a way to make that more interactive."

Because my goal is that the Bible blog be a discussion oriented and interactive site, i've sought an adequate answer to this question.

Unfortunately, blogger does not allow any provision for this kind of thing, so here is our working solution.

I can add any of you who want to a list of people who will receive the messages as I get them in my e-mail. Google mail will automatically forward them from my inbox to you. You'll just have to deal with the fact that all of the messages I type will be referred to as "me" or "you." It's a matter of pronouns, that is all.

Otherwise, the e-mail will contain a description of who left the comment (this is where the "me" means nathan.kemper) on what specific post they left it (there will then be a link to that post) and the actual text of that person's comment.

You can feel free to e-mail my gmail account (nathan.kemper@gmail.com) and ask to be added to this list. Sorry i don't have a better way, but i've tested this one, and it will work. Make sure you are clear which e-mail (any will work, even work e-mails) you would like me to have the messages sent to.

Early Church Fathers

I'm taking a Church History class right now. It is the first in a series of 2 Church History classes that I'll have to take this year.

One assignment we have is reading some texts from early church fathers that they wrote regarding their situation.

Particularly this week, we had to read a letter by a man named "Tertullian" to people in Rome (Christians specifically) telling them to stay away from all arenas (Gladiator competition) and plays.

I want to title my paper, "Why Tertullian and I Would Never Have Been Friends" but I don't know that this particular instructor would appreciate that bluntness.

Tertullian is far more conservative than I feel the need to be, and definitely more conservative than I feel the need to require of all believers as a minimum. It will be hard to write this paper in an un-biased fashion.

Looking Far Ahead

In the car ride home from dinner tonight Jenny's and mine topic of conversation turned to education (fitting since I'm in school). It was the first time we openly discussed any future possibility of me getting a doctorate in something.

I haven't stopped thinking about it since.

It's hard for me not to narrow down specifics. I can picture myself pursuing a doctorate, but can't narrow down to a specific program. There are 3 or 4 which seem to interest me, but none more than others.

The oddest part, was to talk about moving. Not odd because its going to happen, but odd because my lifestyle is always ready to move, and Jenny's personality isn't big on moving. Odd mostly though, because she brought it up.

Nothing else to comment on at the moment. Go Colts!

SpongeBob SquarePants

A year ago today I was wearing a child's small size SpongeBob shirt. It was the most normal thing I was wearing. Coupled with a bib, a boa, pink stretchy pants, a lady's hats and pool arm floaties, I was escorted around downtown Minneapolis on my bachelor party.

I ended up sleeping on a couch that night (if you can call 6:00 a.m. night).

It was the night before my wedding.

Tomorrow is our 1 year anniversary of being married. Lucky for me, I don't have to sleep on the couch tonight.

Date night for under $4.

Its Friday night, so the wife and I decided we'd have a date night. It cost us under $4 as we rented a movie from the Redbox across the street (The Illusionist) and went to the grocery to grab some Cherry Pepsi and Raspberry Ginger-Ale.

It was a fun night. I'd recommend the Illusionist if you have not seen it. I enjoyed it and one of my three favorite actors (Edward Norton) plays the lead character.

Random info for you, the other two of my three favorite are Matt Damon and Kevin Spacey.

Authorial Education

MSK asked:

I've always wondered about the authors of the various texts. In the past, there have been occasional references to the quality of the "text" of the gospels, and other old and new testament verses. Education, in our modern ethnocentric view, was not widespread and references have been made to God providing enlightenment and knowledge to the various authors of scripture. Knowing that the bible has gone through numerous translations of old Hebrew and Greek texts, what (if any) is the common assumption about how the "authors" gained reading/writing abilities? I read through the flow of John 1, and wonder about how much of the phrasing is skill, how much is language structure differences, etc. We know that some of the disciples wrote "letters" that have been placed in the Bible and other letters have not. I had a former pastor indicate, when discussing the gnostic text, how easy it is to see a difference in quality between early "biblical" verses and other "pretenders" to be of similar quality. With your studies of Greek and Hebrew, have you seen such differences?

What a loaded question. I'll jump in. To my knowledge, all of the Bible authors were literate. I have never heard of God using someone who couldn't write to author these documents. These people did not know they were writing the Bible, they were writing for a myriad of other reasons.

There are definite skill differences in the Biblical authors. Some use poetry more effectively, some use language more beautifully, and some use multiple languages. They all even use references to other scriptures or documents in their own unique ways. There is no suggestion that God created a "biblical" style which is common among all the authors of the individual books.

"How easy is it to see differences between early 'biblical' verses and other 'pretenders' to be of similar quality?" I don't speak with an exhaustive amount of knowledge on this subject, but I've never heard of writing skill as a way to discount a non-biblical text from a biblical one. Most often, authorship (meaning people wouldn't proclaim who wrote something) and obvious heresy are the reasons that other texts were not included. Date of writing was also a key factor. As stated above, there are texts written in common Greek, more elite Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew, with some authors weaving in and out of style at points. There does not seem to be a criteria that makes one "biblical" and another "gnostic." (Though I don't know what exactly you mean with the term gnostic, because i don't know that it fits here exactly.)

"With your studies of Greek and Hebrew have you seen such differences?"

The main differences I have seen from studying these languages (as any foreign language) is the limitations that translation puts on us. No two languages translate perfectly. There is often no 1 to 1 relationship between languages and thus every translation is its own interpretation. The other are style differences. I'll give one example from each language.

In Greek, there is no such thing as a double negative. In fact, there are Bible verses that are one sentence but have 5 negatives in them. The strength of this negative is much more obvious in its original language.

In Hebrew, there is no alteration to say things like holy, holier, and holiest. They substitute repetition for this point. Thus, the angels singing "holy, holy, holy" is not mere repetition for vocal remembrance or song value, it is a declaration of what is most holy (3 repeats would be the most of something, two would be for added emphasis).

Language differences are more style and limitation that beauty, though understanding the original allows for a great sense of beauty in reading them.

We are lucky as English speakers to have as many good translations as we do. If any of you are curious about how well your translation does at treating the original text, I can comment about that if you ask.

Not Everyone Is Like Me

Sorry to bore any of you who won't be reading the Bible Discussion Blog (we wish you'd join us) with more details, but its new, so I need to clear up some intentions.

My jump-in-with-both-feet attitude, had originally planned on posting a new chapter everyday, as I try to read at least that in my own personal devotions. That has changed for two reasons this evening.

The major reason that changed is my wife. She mentioned that it is likely that other people don't read the Bible as much as I do, and to have the time to have conversations needed with certain chapters would certainly take more than an individual day. Also, many people read blogs while they are at work (hope your boss isn't around) and would then not take part in any weekend discussions. For that reason (talking with my wife) I've decided I'll do two chapters per week. I'll get some kind of schedule figured out for what days I post the new chapters, but don't know that yet.

The second reason is the fruits of a school assignment I had to do today. We had to make 75 observations based on John 3:16. 25 observations coming only from that verse, 25 from the context before, and 25 from the context after. No observations could be "interpretations" we simply had to notice 25 things that are said in John 3:16. The first 10 or so weren't too bad. After that, it took numerous different visits to the text, and looking from many different viewpoints to come up with 25. It was a fruitful experiment in seeing how our interpretive assumptions make the text say things to us that the text doesn't actually say. It was also interesting to see the benefit in looking at the same text at numerous different times, from different viewpoints.

That is how I personally will view the chapters on my other blog. I don't even know that that means I will read a new chapter every day anymore. In fact, for the next couple of days I will likely only be dwelling in John chapter 1. Feel free to join HERE.

One last thing of note. I will be answering some of the questions that get raised on that blog, that are more general spirituality or Bible questions here in this blog, and the ones that pertain to the particular texts of the chapters I'll answer in the comment section of those chapters there.

I've got one in cue for tomorrow already (for here) so look forward to it. For a sneak peak, you can read MSK's comments on John 1 on the Bible Discussion blog.

There Is Too Much Freespace

I decided today that the Internet has too much untapped space, and though i use a fair share by updating this blog daily, I figured I'd use more.

Thus begins, blog #2.

While youth pastoring at FBC, I enjoyed some of the systems I had established in my life. One of the most beneficial was reading through sections of the Bible on the same schedule as the senior pastor (boss) and talking about them each week when we met.

It is amazing how much you can learn by seeing someone else's perspective or by trying to answer someone else's question.

I miss that practice.

I can remember my wife being jealous of the "way you people see scripture" or the "insight we had while reading" that really only came from discussion. I miss that discussion.

The second reason stems from my father. He asked once about Bible programs that allow you to write notes (into the text, not as footnotes) that he could bring up at anytime. He mainly wanted to do this to discuss those texts he had questions about. All the programs that have this capability are far too advanced in their other gadgets requiring their cost to be too much for his task.

Thus I've created blog #2.

With this blog, I will post a chapter of the Bible a day (taken from the NIV with BibleGateway's footnotes). I'll go through entire books in order (accept Psalms will likely be broken up so as not to spend 6 months going through them). I'll take recommendations on what books to do in what order if there are requests, otherwise, I'll just chose. I won't repeat a chapter until I've gone through the entire Bible.

All posts will simply be the scripture themselves. My interaction with these texts will take place only in the comments section, just like anyone else who chooses to read. I encourage all people to read along, and comment as you have thoughts, observations, insights, or questions. I hope discussion takes place frequently as all can read and re-read at their desire. Feel no need to only comment on what was posted most recently as all texts added will stay to be interacted with.

I'm starting with the Gospel of John as I recommended it previously as the most beneficial book (in my opinion) for any new believer to read first, and because I'm taking a class on the Gospels, so I might end up with something interesting to say.

I believe this process might help us all grow in knowledge of the Bible and intimacy with Christ. No experience necessary. All comments appreciated and encouraged. Participation hoped for.

God Bless.

P.S. I've placed links (like THIS) twice in this post above, and on my links of note section at the right of this page which will link you to the new site. I have posted John 1, but won't have it as my reading until tomorrow, so there aren't comments as of now.

Again For The First Time

Monday nights in our house are best described by "again for the first time." We started watching 24 a little over a year ago (when I bought season 1) and finished the season 5 DVD within 3 days of starting it (we got it for Christmas). That put us on pace to watch the current season as it airs on t.v. (which we have done thus far).

After that comes our other favorite show (CSI even though Miami is my least favorite of the three CSI shows). I had a Monday night class last fall so I'm watching the reruns now, though I have not seen them yet.

We are watching 24 again, but for the first time, not on DVD, and I'm watching CSI rerun its shows, while for me it is the first time.

Monday nights, again for the first time.

How Organized Are You?

A reader responded:

I had heard that the books of the Bible are not in chronological order but did not know what the chronological order was. Thanks for writing that. My follow up question then is, why is it that the New Testament books are not in order in the Bible and what is the chronological order of the Old Testament?

It is correct that, the Old Testament is also not in chronological order. Its hard to say definitively what the order is though. Scholars cannot agree on the author of some of the books, let alone the dates. Books in the Old Testament, therefore are arranged by their genre. The books of the law, the historical books, the "writings," and the prophets. It is commonly agreed that Job would have been the first book written, but that does not mean it takes place first.

Outside of trying to figure out what books were written in what order, it is also debated what order the things represented in the books took place. That is another subject that scholars don't agree upon.

Onto the next part, Why aren't the New Testament books in chronological order? Again, these books are organized by genre. The Gospels (Acts is included because it is the second volume of Luke) and then the Pauline Epistles, followed by more epistles, and then apocalyptic literature. Within some of the sections in the New and Old Testament the books are further organized by their length.

I don't know why these methods were chosen, but they are by no means mandated. Different religions (i.e. Jews) order their books (i.e. the Old Testament) in various ways.

It Happened

Though I was ready for Christmas decorations to be taken down a while ago, we didn't actually take them down until today.

The room looks much bigger. We hadn't seen it with the new couch and without the tree yet, but the couch does a great job at dividing the room in a way that helps it look larger than it used to.

Jenny is thoroughly excited about that. I can kinda notice, but my eye isn't as keen for interior design I guess.

Guest Blogger

I want my wife to guest blog some night. I don't have a particular topic in mind, but she has lots of great thoughts.

I think she should share at least one of them (at her choosing).

This is the blog where you all leave comments (like a protest or something) that demands she do it.

The Chicken or the Egg?

Questions of what came first are sometimes of no importance, like the chicken or the egg, but sometimes can be of large importance. Do you know what comes first in the New Testament?

Which books were written in what order? Would it change your opinion to know what was written first?

Here is my best understanding.

Actual history took place first (obviously). Chirst life ended somewhere around 30 A.D.

Of the New Testament books, the Gospels were not the first books written, in fact, they would have been written much more near the end of the New Testament books written.

The order might look something like this....
Thessalonians (both of them), Galatians, Both Corinthian letters, Romans, Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, Timothy, and then Mark.

Mark is likely the first Gospel written (even though Matthew comes first in most Bibles). It was written sometime between 65-70 A.D. and may not even have been written until after Paul had died.

Most of the letters of the New Testament were written well before any official Gospel document was written. These epistles confronted false teachings and re-enforced truth confrontationally with those who were being persuaded into believing other things. Around 65 or so, Mark decided that maybe a biographical (not like a modern biography though, like an ancient one) would help show (in a different way than the epistles) what we should believe. Their intent is not first to be historical (though they are), but to be Christological (to show Christ's actions, teachings and significance).

There are some unique understandings to these documents, and their place in history when you understand the order they were written in. I can explain more if asked, but don't know where to jump off from now. Feel free to fire away.

Random Trivia Information

I can now answer the question, "Where did the name Jehovah come from if there is no "J" in Hebrew?" I have more detail to this answer than I could ever have imagined, and a less affectionate view for ever using it as a name of God.

It has become popularly accepted, but trust, it wasn't intended by the Hebrew writers to ever be seen as a name for God.

It's interesting enough to me, so now, if you're gonna read this whole post, you'll have to learn some Hebrew as well. Let's Begin.

Hebrew originally started with no vowels. The entire language was made written in only consonants, though vowels were passed down through oral tradition. Thus a Hebrew word would look like the picture below.



This is actually the name of God, pronounced "Yahweh" but represented here only as "y" "h" "v/w" and "h" read right to left. No vowels present. These consonants never changed. In the 10th century or so, the Masorites decided it would be helpful to add vowels and accent marks and grammatical cues to the written text, so as to not rely solely on oral tradition. Thus they developed markings that get added into, above and below consonants to better preserve proper pronunciation. A word with these markings appears below.

This is the Hebrew representation of the word "adonai" which means "Lord." The first consonant is a silent letter, the two markings below symbol a quick breath (the colon thing) and a short "a" vowel. The next consonant is a "d" with the dot above it representing the following "o" vowel. The next consonant "n" with the (T) below it representing another "a" vowel (this time long), but part of a dip thong (the last consonant functions with the vowel)(like au, ai) which makes it they "ai" representation and pronunciation like the word "aye." Again, this is the word "adonai" with the vowels all being represented above and below the consonants.

Moving on... The Masorites held a very sacred view of the original (without vowel) text and would not take any liberties to clarify it through editing (unlike the Greek text). When they would find errors, the would place a small circle above the word, and write whatever correction they found more helpful in the margins. In doing so, they would take the vowel structure of the correct word (at least the one they are suggesting) and place it around the original consonants. Again, they wouldn't change any consonants, and would notify all words they found to be incorrect.

The Masorites also held other sacred Hebrew traditions to be worth passing down. One of these relates to the pronunciation of God's name. At that time, there was a great fear in mispronouncing, or misusing (as commanded not to take in vain) the name of God. Thus, "Yahweh" wasn't pronounced. Like most current Bibles still, the word "LORD" is substituted where the name of God should be. This is because of the Masoritic texts. They treated God's name (grammar wise anyway) like an error. They wanted to cue people not to pronounce that name, but to instead pronounce LORD (in Hebrew, adonai). They began with the same notation of using a different consonant structure, thus the original consonants (YHVH or YHWH) were kept the same, while the vowels from the word "adonai" were placed around those consonants so as to remember you aren't to pronounce the name of God. It would look like below.

The resulting pronunciation of this text (which was never meant to be read as a word anyway, it is two words combined) would be "Yehovah". It is a "Y" consonant and with the short breath and "a" vowel from adonai the "Ye" becomes more pronounced than a "Ya" though in English the distinction would be hard to make. Next comes the "H" from God's name, and the "o" from adonai's vowel structure. Then the "V/W" from God's name and the "A" vowel from adonai (without its dip thong) and the final "H" from God's name. The final product being Yehovah.

There still is no "J" in Hebrew. King James is to blame for the J replacing the "Y" in many Hebrew words. When the King James Bible was printed, Jehovah became a common way of translating the word shown above (which is actually the name of God with markers to remind you to say "Lord" instead of said name).

Jehovah never was written as a name for God. It is through this tract of history that it became known, and has become commonly accepted (so much that the "Jehovah's Witnesses" base their religion around this name as being "most aligned with the original text").

As far as I've been able to tell, Oral tradition is the only way that we get the "a" and "e" vowels that go into Yahweh as I've not found or heard of any Hebrew text which actually show these vowels. It is the most commonly passed down (and still used in modern Hebrew) name of God. It however, isn't written. Before the Masorites, the name was written without its vowels, and upon the vowels being added, the Masorites cued you to the commonly said word, not the commonly understood vowel structure. The Masorites were far more concerned that they not be people causing others to take God's name in vain, than they were concerned that their vowel markings properly showed how God's name was commonly pronounced.

That's enough of a Hebrew lesson for today. If you made it this far, and understood, I'm impressed. If you have questions, feel free to ask.

I'm hooked on a feeling

So my next preaching class started today. We spend a lot of time this afternoon talking about feelings. Not like a counseling session where we were all sharing our feelings, but about being able to get your audience to "feel" the things that the authors of the Bible and God intended people to feel when they read/heard these texts.

We discussed the parts of the Bible that brought distinctly positive feelings, and those texts which are meant to drive you to predominantly negative feelings.

I was amazed to listen as everyone talked about how after getting someone to "feel the negative feelings" that it is often turned to positive feelings by....

I didn't know what to think. I understand the role of encouragement. I even hope that Christians can always show hope and joy (you know, like the fruits of the Spirit and stuff), yet at the same time, I'm comfortable with designing a sermon that makes people feel negative feelings, and leaves them there. I'm not talking about damning people, or making them feel worthless, just about bringing them to a place of negative feeling.

Does church always have to end on a positive note? Can a service be devoid of positive feelings, yet still be encouraging and filled with hope? Is it ever healthy to leave a congregation with negative feelings as your intent?

Classified Ads

What determines if something is a cupcake, or a muffin? Does cupcake require frosting?

What about cake?

If something is advertised as cake, do you expect it to have cake in it somewhere? What about Dairy Queen ice cream cakes? Is it just a shape then?

I have very specific ideas about what makes a cake, a cupcake, a muffin, and a pie.

Do you have expectation also, or do you just take people at their word?

Good Ole RadioFlyer Wagons

I'm not much of a bandwagon guy. I have a lot of favorites, but most of them are well though out or formed over experience, i don't give my loyalties lightly (unless it comes to creative marketing schemes). Such is true with people who use superlatives. I have six or seven favorite preachers, but disagree with all of them in some of the things they say. Specifically, when they use superlatives, or relate something as "most important."

Today was one such issue.

The topic, What is going to happen to you when you die? The statement "I can't think of a more important question to ask."

The response... I find that question to be effective for certain behavioral responses, but far from being the most important question someone can ask themselves. I appreciate when people think about, care about, and even focus on their stance in the afterlife, but would never (see i use superlatives also) put that as the most important thing for someone to figure out, or focus on.

What about you? Are you a bandwagon person? Can you think of more important questions for people to ask (especially speaking religiously)?

Woohoo For Toy Store Goodness

For those of you who don't know, Best Buy is the adult toy store. Jenny and I had received some Best Buy giftcards over Christmas and decided to make use of them tonight. 3 movies for 5$ is a good deal. One of the movies, Jenny had even seen, while I had not (that is pretty rare).

We just finished watching one of them, and are likely to put in a second (we didn't get up until, well until afternoon time).

Let me know if you are looking to borrow a movie ever. Chances are I have some good recommendations for whatever genre you're going for.

Break Is Over

School starts again on Monday. 16 more credits of Seminary fun.

My brain is excited for the classroom discussion time, and my fingers are well healed for their typing endeavors.

Looking forward to practicing preaching, learning more Hebrew, delving into the Gospels, and learning early church history.

Any questions about these things will be welcome.

It's Finally Time

I looked at the Christmas tree today, and decided, it can come down now.

I've enjoyed having it up, but I'm past the season already.

We still have a Christmas party with Jenny's work tomorrow, and then the season is officially over. Even our pastor said that the "Christian" day to take down decorations would be January 6th. You can do the research to double check him, but I believe him.

Shepherds, Crosses, and Crucifixes, Oh My!

Christians use a cross as a religious symbol, but as far as I know, only Catholics use a crucifix. Why don’t other religions use a crucifix versus just a cross?

Funny enough, the answer to this is personal choice, with only speculation and stereotypes to defend either's choice.

In the very early church, no cross or crucifix was used, as it still symbolized the punishment of crucifixion, more than Christ's specific act. During that time (before Rome made crucifying people illegal) images of Jesus as Shepherd was the most widely spread symbol of Christianity. After Rome banned crucifixion as a form of punishment, the negative connotations associated with the cross faded and it became a symbol for Christianity, specifically a symbol of Resurrection instead of death.

Many argue (though no official document supports) that the mainline use of the cross is to show the hope we gain only because Christ resurrected, while the crucifix with Christ still on us points to Christ's sacrifice more than His resurrection.

These arguments often lead to differences in opinion on the importance of His sacrifice vs. His power. Should we be more focused on His action of Resurrection or our action of sin which put Him on the cross.

My guess, and it is completely a guess, is that around the reformation (again, I'm guessing here) a choice of cross over crucifix was made popular while many things were being argued against the catholic church.

Most research points to the two stereotypical differences, but there is little backing to an argument for reason, or proof of a specific theological difference which spawned these changes.

I personally get asked often in why I have a crucifix hanging from the rear view mirror of my car instead of an empty cross. The conversation is enjoyable as both sides represent things in meaningful and valid ways.

Maybe the Christ as shepherd image does better in including both images (His sacrifice and His power) but carries neither of them as significantly as the cross (power) or crucifix (sacrifice) does.

I'll Meet You Half Way

So I got some of the questions e-mailed to me. ( I had to dig them out of junk mail which explains why I didn't see the e-mail the first time.)

Here they are:

Christians use a cross as a religious symbol, but as far as I know, only Catholics use a crucifix. Why don’t other religions use a crucifix versus just a cross?

On the same thinking, as far as I know, Catholics are the only Christian religion to kneel routinely during church service. Why?

In this post, I'll answer one of the questions, and leave the other for tomorrow.

So here we go....

Genuflecting (literally, knee-bending) is a gesture of honor to Jesus and to His Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament reserved within the tabernacle in all Catholic Churches. It is a traditional Catholic tradition that stems from many scriptures. I'll give two examples.

Psalm 95 says "Let us kneel before the Lord, Our Maker".
Paul's Letter to the Philippians (2:10, 11) says "...at the name of Jesus, every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

Because of these scriptures (and many more like them) Orthodox Catholics began kneeling at many occasions. Originally, and occasionally still today, Catholics would bow their head every time the name of Jesus was mentioned (as per Phil 2:10). Genuflecting (actually bending the knees with bowing) was done in the presence of Jesus, and during certain creeds.

Now let me expand on the "in the presence of Jesus" statement. This statement is to be taken only in its literal sense. Understanding that God is everywhere is true, but does not therefore require bowing at all times. In Catholic tradition, the sacraments (bread and wine) are considered the actual transfigured body and blood of Christ. In most Christian traditions, these sacraments are seen as symbols, but not as actually becoming the body and blood when "blessed" by the pastor/priest. Therefore, Catholics (and maybe others, but not mainline denominations i know of) believe that Christ is also physically present whenever the sacrament is present, not just spiritually present. At this occasion, Catholics bow in the presence of Jesus.

For this reason (traditionally trained Priests) will instruct a couple of key things. One does not genuflect when re-entering the pew immediately after receiving Holy Communion, because the Body of Christ is now actually contained within the person who has just received Him. Also, Good Friday would be a time (again this would be in traditionally orthodox trained Catholic Priests) where no communion would be served, and thus no bowing to honor the physical presence of Christ.

I can't confidently speak, as I haven't visited many Catholic services, but these would be the traditional roots of bowing during the service. It is an act based on biblical passages. Many churches today chose to "honor Christ's presence" in other ways besides bowing, while some do also bow (though not necessarily regularly). The difference in views of the sacrament may explain why the Catholic church does this much more regularly than other mainline traditions.

I'd love for follow up questions to be asked, or peoples personal examples to be explained. Feel free to comment.

Tomorrow I'll start on the crucifix vs. the cross question.

2007 Year of the Party

One day done. One party thrown.

Our house is officially cleaner than it has ever been since we moved in as the backwards philosophy of cleaning before a party, just to then have to clean again after it, was again dictated by this house's winning voice.

Woohoo for vacuums and mops and places I didn't ever imagine would need to be cleaned.

I still don't get it.

Someone please explain it to me.