God . . . or “a” god?

In my last post, I briefly explained that I believed the text of John 1:1 in the Greek could only be translated one way: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” I want to here further explain it, both for edification, and for clarification.

I think it will be helpful to post a section of my grammar that discusses this detail. This is an excerpt from William B. Wallaces’ Advanced Greek Grammar.

The nominative case is the case that the subject is in. When the subject takes an equative verb like “is” (i.e., a verb that equates the subject with something else), then another noun also appears in the nominative case—the predicate nominative. In the sentence, “John is a man, John is the subject and “man” is the predicate nominative. In English, the subject and predicate nominative are distinguished by word order (the subject comes first). Not so in Greek. Since word order in Greek is quite flexible and is used for emphasis rather than for strict grammatical function, other means are used to distinguish subject from predicate nominative. For example, if one of the two nouns has the definite article, it is the subject.

As we have said, word order is employed especially for the sake of emphasis. Generally speaking, when a word is thrown to the front of the clause it is done so for emphasis. When a predicate nominative is thrown in front of the verb, by virtue of word order it takes on emphasis. A good illustration of this is John 1:1c. The English versions typically have, “and the Word was God.” But in Greek, the word order has been reversed. It reads,

kaiÉ qeov” h^n o& lovgo”

and God was the Word

We know that “the Word” is the subject because it has the definite article, and we translate it accordingly: “and the Word was God.” Two questions, both of theological import, should come to mind: (1) why was qeov” thrown forward? And (2) why does it lack the article? In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: “What God was, the Word was” is how one translation brings out this force. Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of “God” (the Father). That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has; lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father. John’s wording here is beautifully compact! It is, in fact, one of the most elegantly terse theological statements one could ever find. As Marin Luther said, the lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism.

To state this another way, look at how the different Greek constructions would be rendered:

kaiÉ o& logov” h^n o& qeov” “and the Word was the God” (i.e., the Father; Sabellianism)

kaiÉ o& logov” h^&n qeov” “and the Word was a god” (Arianism)

kaiÉ qeov” h^n o& logov” “and the Word was God” (Orthodoxy)

Jesus Christ is God and has all the attributes that the Father has. But he is not the first person of the trinity. All this is concisely affirmed in kaiÉ qeov” h^n o& logov”.

In an attempt to be more “open-minded”, if you will, I have also copied a section from a Jehovah’s Witness site in defense of their translation.

“On the other pages discussing John 1:1 on this site we have found that the Greek of John 1:1c, namely, KAI QEOS HN hO LOGOS, can be rendered as ” and the Word was a god” and that this is grammatically possible, even grammatically preferable. However, those trinitarians who admit as much argue against it on the grounds that such a rendering conflicts with the belief of monotheism. This is a theological argument. The belief that there is only one who is QEOS, “God,” and this one is the true God, so that, if Jesus is QEOS and yet is not a ‘false god’ he must of necessity be that one true God and not “a god.”

The following will allow the inspired holy scriptures and other relevant writings to show that biblical monotheism and the “a god” rendering of QEOS at John 1:1 is biblically sound . . .

It is to be noted from the above that someone other than “the God,” could bear the title or rather the term “god,” [Greek theos or QEOS] and not contradict or conflict with the notion of monotheism at that time. We have to realise that such terms as ‘monotheism,’ ‘polytheism’ and ‘henotheism’ are relatively modern descriptive terms. Polytheism is the belief and religious worship of more than one god. Each god has a ’sphere’ of their own. Jehovah’s Witnesses are not polytheists. Henotheism is the belief in and worship of one god without denying the existence of others who also can receive religious worship. Jehovah’s Witnesses are not henotheists. Monotheism has been defined as the belief in and religious worship of one God only. Jehovah’s Witnesses are then monotheists as they hold to this. According to the Bible’s monotheism the rendering “and the Word was a god” would not teach polytheism nor henotheism as the Bible does not say that the “Word,” Jesus Christ should receive religious worship, that is, worship as the one true god. Can this be proved from the scriptures? As well as the remarks by Haenchen re Philippians 2:6ff- Yes . . .

In John 1.1 do we see the Word’s being described as theos with “limitations and qualifications”? Yes. John qualifies the Word being theos by his showing that the Word was “with” ho theos, that is with the god, “God.” That is, the Word, while being predicated with the word theos, was not “God.”

Hence, just as the Jewish writer Philo, a monotheist, could write of Moses when expanding on the passage in Exodus 7.1:

“For, since God judged him worthy to appear as a partner of His own possessions, He gave into his hands the whole world as a portion well fitted for His heir…Was not the joy of [Moses'] partnership with the Father and Maker of all magnified also by the honour of being deemed worthy to bear the same title? For he was named god and king of the whole nation”(Mos.1.155-158; Prob.42-44), that the Logos of God was a “god” even a “second god” and also argues that the articular and anarticular uses of God in Genesis 31.13LXX [ego eimi ho theos ho ophtheis soi en topo thou] distinguishes whom theos is applied to in that the articular theosdenotes the one who is “properly called God,” by which he means “He that is truly God, ” the Word is “improperly so called,”(Somn. 1.229-230)

http://onlytruegod.org/defense/monotheism.htm

So, there, in quite technical language (sorry!) is the problem. How is the passage to be translated? What I found consistently in the article was the defense of monotheism, even sometimes above defense of the text itself. The writer claimed that we defend the text on the basis of theological views, when in fact, he does the very same thing. The claim that the belief of Jesus being one with God is polytheism has absolutely no biblical backup whatsoever. Perhaps that is a subject for another day. But it is sufficient to say that belief in the “Godness” of Jesus hardly destroys the “oneness” of God. It is a profound mystery, but the teaching of the trinity is very firmly supported by Scripture.While believing that Jesus is God, I am very firmly a monotheist.

Ultimately, the translation is up to the translator. But there is only one way for it to be translated. John had only one meaning when he wrote it. In any case, this has certainly been a hot debate throughout the years, and will no doubt continue to be so. But I believe that, if what Wallace said is correct, the ONLY way to translate the passage is “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word WAS God.”

But of course, you’ll have to decide that for yourself. (That’s why you really should learn Greek. )

Alan,
Thanks for that website. It was helpful in understanding a little bit more about Jehovah’s Witness doctrine, and about the New World Translation.

 

I still believe, and think that it can be proven (even if I’m not yet strong enough in the Greek language to do so) that that translation is in error.

For interest, you might read some of Daniel Wallace, a well-known Greek grammarian. In my Greek textbook, there is a section by him on this very topic. It is long, but I will write it down for your reference.

He says:

The nominative case is the case that the subject is in. When the subject takes an equative verb like “is” (i.e., a verb that equates the subject with something else), then another noun also appears in the nominative case—the predicate nominative. In the sentence, “John is a man, John is the subject and “man” is the predicate nominative. In English, the subject and predicate nominative are distinguished by word order (the subject comes first). Not so in Greek. Since word order in Greek is quite flexible and is used for emphasis rather than for strict grammatical function, other means are used to distinguish subject from predicate nominative. For example, if one of the two nouns has the definite article, it is the subject.

As we have said, word order is employed especially for the sake of emphasis. Generally speaking, when a word is thrown to the front of the clause it is done so for emphasis. When a predicate nominative is thrown in front of the verb, by virtue of word order it takes on emphasis. A good illustration of this is John 1:1c. The English versions typically have, “and the Word was God.” But in Greek, the word order has been reversed. It reads,

kaiÉ    qeov”    h^n    o&    lovgo”
and    God    was    the    word

We know that “the Word” is the subject because it has the definite article, and we translate it accordingly: “and the Word was God.” Two questions, both of theological import, should come to mind: (1) why was qeov” thrown forward? And (2) why does it lack the article? In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: “What God was, the Word was” is how one translation brings out this force. Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of “God” (the Father). That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has; lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father. John’s wording here is beautifully compact! It is, in fact, one of the most elegantly terse theological statements one could ever find. As Marin Luther said, the lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism.

To state this another way, look at how the different Greek constructions would be rendered:

kaiÉ o& logov” h^n o& qeov”    “and the Word was the God” (i.e., the Father; Sabellianism)
kaiÉ o& logov” h^&n qeov”    “and the Word was a god” (Arianism)
kaiÉ qeov” h^n o& logov”     “and the Word was God” (Orthodoxy)

Jesus Christ is God and has all the attributes that the Father has. But he is not the forst person of the trinity. All this is concisely affirmed in kaiÉ qeov” h^n o& logov”.

Daniel B. Wallace

Okay . . . So I’m a Greek Geek . . . So what?

So, I have successfully (I think) completed my first semester of Biblical Greek. It had really been great. There’s been an amount of pain along the way, there’s no doubt (like staying up until 2:00 am trying to parse words for a Greek exam), but what class doesn’t have its share of these things? Working hard for it is what makes it seem so much more enjoyable now . . . because I appreciate the pain it takes to get here.

By here, I do not mean that I have reached the pinnacle of my Greek studies. No, I think there is still a rather long road ahead of me yet. But I am ready to traverse it.

I think Greek (and eventually Hebrew) should become a way of life for anyone who loves the Bible. It is hard, but it is totally worth it, and I can’t even read it all yet! But, as Martin Luther said,

“Languages are the scabbard that contains the sword of the Spirit; they are the casket which contains the priceless jewels of antique thought; they are the vessel that holds the wine; and as the gospel says, they are the baskets in which the loaves and fishes are kept to feed the multitude. . . . As dear as the gospel is to us all, let us as hard contend with its language.”

He is quite right. It is a hard contention a lot of times (believe me, it really is), so I’m not trying to downplay that fact. But anyone who is diligent can accomplish it, even if it takes longer than a few semesters. It is for the purpose of better reading and accurately understanding God’s word. And God’s word is precious to us, isn’t it? So why don’t we try to read it and understand it as purely as possible?

Of course, this is me talking, who’s a little first-year Greek student. I still have at least three semesters left. But I don’t think that I will think any differently even after all of that. It may seem to some that, aside from the Bible, the languages have little purpose, and should perhaps be better left to the studies of the ministry student. I would contend that is absolutely not true. It is just as vital a study for the lay Christian as it is for the dedicated scholar. Again, it is God’s word, in the purest form we can get.

Another reason I think that every Christian should undergo this study is for evangelism. Yes, you can use the languages in evangelism. Not always, I’m sure, but when opportunity arises, you will be ready. I would even contend that the more you are prepared for opportunities, God will give them to you. Don’t we want those? Don’t we want to show people the purity of God’s word, and the reliability of the Greek and Hebrew texts?

I recently had a chance to apply some of what I had learned in the context of evangelism. It was perhaps a somewhat “bold” venture for me, but I pray that God used what I said for His glory. I was out running errands, and I came across a giant booth set up at a very public place. It was plastered with posters saying “Free Bible Literature.” I had my suspicions, but went over to it and grabbed a little book entitled “What the Bible REALLY says.” I didn’t need to read much to know what it was about. It was Jehovah’s Witness literature. I thumbed through the pages and read what it said about “the good man, Jesus.” Nothing about his Godship, his being a Savior, Redeemer, etc. Just a good man that we can take as an example.

I began to feel very angry. Here these people were, passing out literature that was destructive, was ripping at the very core of Christianity, giving it out like pieces of candy. I paid and left the store. On the way out I argued with myself about whether or not to say anything. Finally, my (hopefully righteous) anger won over my pride, and I marched back up to the booth. The two men looked at me rather surprised as I set the book back down and said, “I don’t want this.” “Oh, did you read it already?” One of them asked. “I read enough to know that I very much disagree.” (I know that Jehovah’s witnesses like to discuss their beliefs, and I wasn’t looking for an argument, but I felt very compelled to defend the Gospel.) They both looked at me as I rambled on, “I disagree because I believe with all my heart that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. This book and your other literature is preaching a heresy. Do you know that what you are teaching here with all of this literature is a dangerous lie that damns people to hell every day?” They blinked. One of them started to argue with me, asking me to show him in the Bible where it said that Jesus was God. Here it went. I didn’t want to argue. He handed me a Bible. I asked him about the translation, and he said it was The New World translation. I told him that I believed that the translation was faulty. I could not show him passages from a Bible that changed the wording to make Jesus less than God. I showed him John 1, where they change the word to “and the Word was with God, and the word was A god.” I told him that that was NOT what the Greek said. He looked at me funny. I told him that I was a Bible College student, currently studying Greek, and that I had studied this very passage, and that there was no other way for it to be translated other than “and the Word was with God, and the Word WAS God.” He tried to argue something about they had the oldest Greek texts available, but I told him that was not true, and I wasn’t going to argue anymore. I guess we agreed to disagree.

So, that’s not a “successful”, if you will, conversion story, or anything like that. He probably laughed after I left and thought I was a kook. But I was able to defend the Gospel and hold my ground because I had a knowledge of how the Greek HAD to be translated. Jesus IS God. There is no other way to read it. And, even if he didn’t agree, at least he couldn’t prove that wrong.

So, all of this to say, there are SO many good things (that I am only just beginning to experience) to come out of the study of the Biblical languages. And I would encourage everyone to make the opportunity to do so. It will be hard. You can count on that. But it is worth it. Again, as Luther said,

“As dear as the gospel is to us all, let us as hard contend with its language.”

 

 

The Greatest of These

So, in our girls’  Bible Study on Saturday mornings at Panera, we have been studying a lot of things. We have been reading through John Piper’s book, Let the Nations be Glad. It is a great book. We are finding, however, that with the length of the chapters, and the length of time between meetings, we are not getting as much out of reading it together as we could. Or, so we decided this last Saturday.

So we studied Psalm 67 for a while. Ultimately, God will be glorified all over the entire earth, and God blesses us in many ways, causing us, as Christians to “shine” before the nations, making what we believe appealing. Our goal should be to reflect God’s face to the world in order that all may come to know him. Let the Nations be glad and sing for joy!

After that, we got into a long discussion about love (don’t know how . . . it was one of those random rabbit trails that turn out really good, no matter how irrelevant). It’s really that I wanted to write about. It impressed me, because I really struggle with it. The every day, hardcore, unconditional, often unnoticed, often thankless, often humbling kind of love that Jesus calls us to have for each other. I fail so often to think of others before myself. I place my own needs and desires above almost everything else.  And it is very wrong. Paul says in Romans 13 that love is the fulfillment of the law. It is very true. We are commanded really to do only two things: love God with all our hearts, souls, minds, and strength, and to love our neighbors as ourselves. In doing that, we are able to fulfill every single requirement of the law.

It was somewhat comforting to find that I’m not the only one who struggles in the area. Each of us confessed a pronounced lack in that area of our lives. But as we discussed it, we realized just how very crucial it is for everything.  So, really, the purpose of this post is just to recap some of those things, and to stir others on to consider these things.

I drew a little diagram for them that was helpful.

God

Non-Believers                      Us                   Other Believers

Family

If that can be made sense of, it is meant to picture how love works. It comes from God, ultimately, since he showed the greatest love ever in sending Christ to die for our sins. We are to then return that love back to him. We continually seek to love God with all of our hearts by reading His word and discovering who He is and worshiping Him for it. We show it by obeying what His word says, without question. He alone can bring us the peace and joy that comes from loving unconditionally.

Our love first then falls to our family. These can fall in one of two categories. Either they will be believers, or unbelievers. But love must extend to both branches. Family will, and should, come first in any of our affections, since they are the people God has placed us among the most for a chance to show love, and for our sanctification. We all took it as a challenge, since most of us are still at home, to try to show great love to our families, who may be some of the hardest people to sacrificially love sometimes, for whatever reason.

Our love has to extend to the church next. We love being with other believers. We talked about ideas of how to love one another. Being all single young women, we tried to think of ways that we could effectively show our love sacrificially. One idea was babysitting for free, another was helping someone with extra housework, painting, yard cleanup, etc. We could certainly look for avenues of service in preparing for the church meetings each week, or in Bible Study. Another way could be prayer. Whatever the case, we all realized that each of us is required and privileged to show love to the church body in some way.

The last area of extension is to unbelievers. We are to show love, even to them. This could be a very hard area. We thought of specific situations where it was very difficult with co-workers, etc., to show the love of Christ. It can be very tempting to act like the world in those areas. But there are many ways in which we can do it. Sacrificing time to visit a nursing home. Going out of your way to help a co-worker. Bringing someone you know a gift of some sort, or writing them an encouraging note. In any case, our love for them needs to be intentionally targeted, because it is so easy to fall into apathy in this area.  We most often just want to fit in, and not sacrifice our pride to show them real, true love.

So, we had a very profitable discussion, and I was very convicted by it. Hopefully we each of us will take what we discussed and learned and apply it to our lives. I truly believe that love fulfills everything else. So, if we can learn to love, truly love, think what kind of people we will be. We will be kneeling with Jesus, washing our friends’ and our enemies’ feet. We will be giving up our own desires to fulfill the desires and needs of may others. We may be called to give up our comfortable existence in America to learn another culture and way of life in pursuit of showing love to people around the world. Some of us may even be called to lay down our lives for the sake of this love. And it is all because of our awesome Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave up his life for sinners so that we could be saved. What an amazing God we serve!

It should not surprise us, therefore, to read the verse “And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.” 1Corinthians 13:13. If the greatest of these is love, should we not strive all the harder for it?

 

God

Non-Believers LOVE Other Believers

Family

All Must Die

This is a poem I wrote several years ago that I recently found while looking through some files. It’s not great, but I think it is true, and it is an interesting way of looking at life and death. Anyway, hope some of you enjoy it!

The old, old oak tree spreads its boughs

Above the new grass dotted with

Gleaming stones, wet from the rain

That passed through here an hour ago.

The great tree shivers in the cold;

Its massive trunk gives strong support

To gnarled branches, swayed by the wind

Which long sustains a chilly blow.

‘Tis silent here; ‘tis undisturbed,

And day by day no voice is heard

Within these walls of iron and stone.

They do not let joy filter through,

Like laughter, song, and children’s play,

But only such as death can bring:

Sorrow, weeping, grief and gloom;

It seems the walls are crying too.

A verdant hill slopes gently down

Towards the old oak tree. Around,

Upon the ground, much like a sea

Of snowy foam, are stones, so white

From rain they gleam, and seem to wink

Up at the sky, now bearing down

With gentle beams to warm the earth.

It yawns and soaks in all the light.

How can they sit so silently,

These stones among the unmown green,

When each one represents a life

Filled to the brim with everything

That its creator made to be?

Surely, some lived happily,

While others still were never known,

Yet here lay all, this bitter Spring.

The stones don’t care, nor can they tell

What hopes and fears were in the hearts

Of those who lie beneath their mass;

They only hold the date and name,

The graven proof of who they were,

Yet does that mean that all is done;

That now, buried beneath the ground,

The life forever will remain?

No, it cannot and it shall not be!

Life is not worth so small a thing

As gleaming stone to mark its place.

No, it continues- for a few,

To heaven and all it’s beauty

With victory to God will come.

Yet many more will not find rest,

But realize what they never knew.

This place cries out so solemnly

The warning meant for all who pass

And see the ground where all will lay

Until they come unto God’s throne.

There, mercy, grace, undying love,

Are found, and given, only to some.

Yet the place gives warning to the rest,

That many will have never known.

The songs we can hear from this place

All share the haunting melody.

O sinner, don’t you hear that tune?

It’s telling you to run, to flee,

Before you too will lay beneath

The gleaming stone, your fate then sealed,

With nothing left but heart and soul,

Awaiting then what has to be.

The chorus is but three small words,

The sum of which the warning is:

“All must die.” No more or less.

This cannot change, or pass away.

No matter how you live in life,

When you too lay beneath the stone,

What only matters is your heart,

Which, sealed in death, can never change.

© Laura Wingerd 2007

Is God Just a Combination of Attributes?

So, today I was sitting in the information booth at Red Barn Farm. It was a really slow day, and all I could do was sit there. I couldn’t leave my post. So I got out Greek flashcards and worked on those for a while.

After the Greek, I grabbed some scrap pieces of receipt out of the trashcan and started writing some things down. Here is what I wrote on one of the receipts:

What is God? I know that he’s a Spirit, but how (if possible) do we describe him? I don’t know if we can. He’s awesome, holy, all-knowing, righteous, etc. I can easily describe many of his attributes, but I don’t feel like I’m really describing him. There is no one, all-encompassing adjective that gets at every single attribute of God. The closest is that he is holy, utterly unique. And that doesn’t cover everything, and doesn’t get at his essence, does it? What does it mean to be unique? Set apart, completely different from everything else. But even there, it is a negative comparison, describing what God is not like. It still does not describe what he is. He is NOT like anything else.

So, in other words, God is completely indescribable,  down at the very essence, if we can say that. Perhaps he wants it that way. But sometimes I SO want to know, and SO want to see him, face to face! Maybe in heaven I’ll have a better idea of what God is, and who he is.

If we stop and think about it, we really don’t know much at all, other than what he has revealed to us about his nature and character. It makes him all the more mysterious, and for me, makes me desire to seek knowledge of him even more. Praise God that he is completely indescribable! Praise God that we can keep seeking his face and learning to know and love him!

This is awesome, breathtaking, really, to think about!

Biking (flying) and Dreaming

So, I finally got a good bike. The last one was demolished by my dad and brother after I left for college, and parts were salvaged to fix other bikes. So, needless to say, I needed a new one.

Today Sarah and I biked along the Missouri River on Old South Bluff Road. It’s so beautiful there. You can see the river almost the whole time, and you have the State Park on your other side. It’s pretty neat. And today was an awesome day to bike. The weather was so nice!

I’d really like to bike more. It feels really good! I love to climb a really steep hill, and then feel the  rush of wind in my face as I sail down the other side. It is exhilarating, to say the least. There’s a sense of feeling like you can almost fly, or that you’re at least going to try!  I am going to try and see if my brother will bike with me every morning. It would be a great way to start the day!

I’ve often thought about what it would be like to bike across the whole country. There have been several people who have stopped by the tea room I work at in Platte City who are on some sort of bike route like that. They must see so many awesome sights! And just the accomplishment of actually doing it would be pretty incredible. I doubt I’ll ever be able to do something that extensive, but, you never know. Maybe I’ll just start with biking the 8 miles of trail every day, and see where it goes from there.

“I pray you, show me your glory!”

I have been thinking a lot lately about what it means to pursue God. I mean to truly pursue him.

I listened to a sermon by Paul Washer the other day. He was describing his intense struggle to know God. He retold how he had begun to pray for God to show him his face, his presence. For three months, night after night he begged God to show himself to him. But God “wouldn’t come.”  Then one night, he “came.” Washer describes it as almost being knocked to the floor with the sheer weight of God’s presence. Awesome.

I want that! I want so badly to be “knocked to the ground” with the weight of God’s glory! And I have only felt something remotely like that a couple of times in my life. But it seems so hard to get. It takes so much work sometimes! I want it to be easy! Like in heaven, when we are actually in God’s presence. I want my life to be that way, since I am actually in his presence in a sense. Why is it so difficult?

I think, I know the answer, at least partly. The biggest reason is, of course, we are still in a sinful world, with sin always nagging us, and we are worn down with this life. In heaven, we will truly be in the presence of God, actually seeing him face to face. It will be impossible to be distracted by anything else.

But the practical reason is, we pursue other things. I’m not saying it’s wrong to pursue other things. Not necessarily, anyhow. But it’s the way that we do it. What I mean is, we tend to prioritize our pursuits. And very often, the pursuit of knowing God gets prioritized. Therein lies the problem.

God cannot be prioritized. Pursuing God should be like eating and drinking– a natural desire and fulfillment. But how often I feel like my attitude is : “I will pursue God after I finish this or that. After I get this done, then I will have time to pursue him more deeply.” Well, what I am doing may be very important, but . . . that important?

I was shocked when I found myself consciously thinking something like that the other day. I was at work, and was thinking about how I want so much more to pursue God. Then I felt the flashcards in my pocket and thought, “oh yeah, I have that Greek exam to study for. I’d better get that done, and then  can focus more intensely on my pursuit of God.”  What? Did I actually think that? Yes, and sadly, I realized it’s true of a lot of the way I live my life.

So, all of this to say, pursue God. And that means, first, foremost, before everything else. Greek exams are important, and there are many very important things in life. I’m not suggesting that we need to be anywhere close to the cloistered life of a monk. I’m saying that in daily life, God cannot be prioritized; He must be centralized, and everything else should form around that. I’m sure this has been said before. But it’s helpful for me to write it out anyway. God is so worthy of being pursued. God, please show me your glory! Please knock me to the ground with it!

Then Moses said, “I pray you, show me your glory!” And he said, “I Myself will make all My goodness pass before you, and will proclaim the name of the Lord before you; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show compassion on whom I will show compassion.” But he said, “You cannot see my face, for no man can see Me and live!” Then the Lord said, “Behold, there is a place my Me, and you shall stand there on the rock; and it will come about, while my glory is passing by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock and cover you with My hand until I have passed by. Then I will take my hand away and you shall see my back, but my face shall not be seen.” Exodus 33:17-23

Greek and Barnyard 101

So this semester I’m working and studying Greek. It’s been a lot of fun so far. I love Greek. I can pick up a New Testament and actually read quite a lot of it. That’s exciting!

I got a job yesterday at my favorite place to work . . . Red Barn Farm. Among other things, during the week I am going to be leading  school tours! This is going to be interesting! I have been there when school tours were going on before, but have never led one, so we’ll see how this goes. For the most part it has impressed me as a bunch of bratty kids following an exasperated teacher around the yard. But I hope to change that.

Cindy, my boss, gave me a packet of information to study for the tours. It’s full of farm facts, most of which I did not know. I feel like I’m taking another class, but this one I have ot turn around and teach!

Some of the  random facts in the packet are:

1. Bees are the only insects that produce something that we can eat. They have been making honey for over 150 million years! (a fact I will have to change, slightly )

2. A queen bee will eventually have over 60,000 daughters, ad only a few hundred sons.

3. There are about 340-50 squirts (of milk) per gallon.

4. Pigs cannot sweat (thus all that rolling in the mud).

5. Goslings can “adopt” people as their parents, because a gosling identifies the first thing it sees as its parent.

And etc. Those are only a few. But this is going to be interesting!

I’m Back!

Okay . . . it’s been way too long since my last post. March? That’s . . . 5 or 6 months! Sorry! I’ve been busy, but that’s not an excuse, I guess.

I guess the first thing I should do is bring the blog up to date. Basically, I finished my Freshman year, came home for the summer to work, realized while home that I was going to need to stay home for a semester and work, and so am now 4 weeks into an online Greek class and working 50+ hours a week at two jobs! I think that’s about it in a nutshell. So I didn’t write because that was all . . . kind of boring. But I will try hard to spice my life up now . . . at least in writing.

This is not supposed to be a long post. Basically I am just announcing that I’m going to be doing my best once again to maintain some sort of consistency in posting. This is for several reasons.

1) I want to do it.   2) People have started to complain.  3) I’m the kind of person that has to finish something I’ve started, and finish it well.  4) It’s a lot of fun once I get into it!

So, there, I have no excuse. We’ll see how this goes.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

In my World Views class the past two weeks we have been studying Intelligent Design. Last week and yesterday we watched the recently released movie, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, with Ben Stein. It was actually really good.

The overall point of the movie is to prove that there is validity to the Intelligent Design claims. Stein, who is Jew, explores the many facets of the “battle” between the Intelligent Design movement and opposing views, especially the evolutionary theory. Stein works to bring to light the fact that the opposing views are hostile towards those who hold to Intelligent Design (ID), and that, for the most part, discussion of its ideas has been ignored and pushed out of classrooms and academia.

The “battle” is a lot bigger than I thought, and this video is very eye-opening. It’s true, it is a one-sided view of the argument; Stein holds to ID and promotes it. Critics could claim that it is biased. And it is. But, there has to be bias in presenting the truth, and that is how Stein has come about it. He examines the other arguments, but does not give them any foothold in taking control of the argument. ID is clearly the victor. The opponents are shown primarily in their “worst” lights. A question that should be asked is, “How helpful is it for Stein to make fun of and not listen to the ideas of these people, while blaming them for doing the very same thing?” It comes across in rather a bad light because of that, and the approach ends up as not very convincing, especially for someone opposed to the view. But, on the whole, the information brought forth is very valuable, especially for those who are open to learning and seeking the truth.

When I was done watching, I could not help but be challenged. As I was walking back to my room, I stared up at the sky, and at creation all around me, and worshiped God for it. I believe in Intelligent Design. I believe that there is ONE Intelligent Designer: God. But it was good for me to reaffirm that and also to reaffirm why I believe that. The evidence is clearly proof of God’s hand on the world.

There is much at stake in believing these things. At one point, an interviewee openly mocks Creationists, saying that “they’re the real idiots,” in reference to belief in the ark and the survival of creation through that. Are we strong enough in our faith to take such scorn? It is definitely time that we as Christians reaffirm and proclaim what we believe. Such a foundational part of the Christian World View should not be taken lightly, or sort of “skipped” in our attempts to present the Gospel. This Intelligent Designer is at the very center of what we believe, and should therefore be the center of everything we talk about, and of the way that we live our lives.

It is interesting to watch the conversation Stein has with evolutionist/atheist Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is speaking about how evolution explains everything. Stein asks the simple question, “how did life begin?” Dawkins admits that he has no idea. He suggests the possibility of highly developed intelligent creatures from another planet having come to earth very long ago, and created what we see, explaining the design that is in the world. Stein responds by saying he had no idea that Dawkins believed in Intelligent Design! Ultimately, when it comes down to it, Dawkins confesses that evolution has no explanation for the origin of life. He utterly rejects any notion of the Hebrew God of the Bible, and opts for the extraterrestrial creatures. An arbitrary argument at best, his comeback is weak, and the point is made that perhaps evolution is not the best answer after all.

The extreme of rejecting the Intelligent Design explanation results in the haunting reality of absolute futility. The movie very vividly portrays this with one man’s testimony of having come from believing in ID to ultimately rejecting it. Dr. William Provine passionately declares what he now feels: no hope, no God, no life after death, and no human free will. He said,

It starts by giving up an active deity, then it gives up the hope that is in your life after death. When you give those two up, the rest follows fairly easily. You give up the hope that there is an imminent morality. And finally, there’s no human free will. If you believe in evolution, you can’t hope that there be any free will. There’s no hope whatsoever of there being any deep meaning in human life. We live, we die, and we’re gone. We’re absolutely gone when we die.

Let’s suppose my [brain] tumor comes back, as it almost certainly will. Well, I’m not going to sit around like my older brother did last year as he was dying of ALS, Lou Gehrig’s disease. He wanted desperately to die, but we couldn’t help him die. I don’t want to die like that. I want to shoot myself in the head long before then. I’m going to do something different.

I don’t feel one bit bad about holding the views that I do. There’s not anything in the views I hold that makes me, “Oh, I wish I had free will,” or, “Oh, I wish there was a God.” I don’t EVER, EVER, wish that.

Those words are haunting. “We live, we die, and we’re gone.” That’s it. There is no meaning to life. What a sad place to be! That is the other extreme of this debate, and it is such a tragic place to be. We need to press for the truth to be known because of that. Because people like that are living lives of absolute meaninglessness. Because people like that are perfectly willing to die and go completely out of existence. Because people like that have absolutely no hope. I hope this is as sobering to you as it was to me.

So, yes, the movie is biased. It is one-sided. But it is so for the purpose of showing that the ideas of evolution are dominating academia, and the Intelligent Design is being pushed out of scope completely. It’s not only not fair in a purely scientific aspect, in that every view should be able to have equal validity until proven false, but it is a dangerous position. Expelled is a call to people of every place and status to examine these things. There is a battle on. And for Christians, what is at stake is the truth about everything we believe and trust and love and hope for. Can we remain silent on this issue?