In a sense, it’s all an empty argument because, in Iyov’s viewpoint, the original Hebrew texts are the only valid form of scripture for proper worship of God:

[...] the question of translation is unimportant in any case since we should pray the Psalms in Hebrew for God to accept them. But to the extent that a translation is a commentary on the Psalms, we should aspire for a translation that is as close to the Hebrew as possible. In the meanwhile, I feel sorry for all those who pray the [Psalms in English] — for when their prayers ascend to Heaven, they are nothing more than nonsense words. [original post here]

Here ultimately we have the tension between these two bloggers: Iyov, presumably Jewish (though I will note that I’ve never seen him explicitly declare as such – he has assumed a Jewish online persona and writes much content about the Hebrew Bible and Judaism, but never draws a direct connection to himself, the actual living person), and John, a United Methodist Christian pastor.

Jewish tradition, as far as I know it, forbids the use of any language other than Hebrew for proper worship. In vivid contrast, Christianity has based its growth around the world on providing God’s message in as many receiver languages as possible.

It is in John’s religious tradition to pursue excellence in translation as a more effective means of evangelism and personal growth, whereas for Iyov an English Bible is a true mataiologos, a wilderness of words, a vain discussion devoid of meaning, since fruitful worship and study can ultimately only occur with the Hebrew texts that are at the heart of the Jewish community.

It’s a fascinating discussion, but I’m having a hard time seeing how these two will come to anything more than peaceful disagreement when their traditions draw them in seemingly opposite direction. John’s own studies of the Hebrew texts are fascinating and enriching in many ways, but ultimately the fruit is borne when his work is translated to English (which to his credit, John studiously does, even when it seems he’d rather not at times). For Iyov, this is forbidden fruit.

John Hobbins posted an excerpt of Senator Obama’s explanation for resigning as a member from Trinity UCC. I don’t have a specific issue with him leaving his longtime church home, but his comments on what he’s looking for in his family’s next church struck me particularly cold:

[...] what I want to do in church is I want to be able to take Michelle and my girls, sit in a pew quietly, hopefully get some nice music, some good reflection, praise God, thank Him for all of the blessings He has given our family, put some money in the collection plate, maybe afterwards go out and grab some brunch, have my girls go to Sunday school. That’s what I am looking for.

Milk milk milk! This is church as the Sunday social club. What about strengthening your understanding of God’s word, Senator? Becoming a more mature Christian? Learning what wisdom the Bible instructs us about? Surely these might be beneficial to you as a man, a father, a husband, a Senator, perhaps even a President?

But no, the good Senator seems to feel that a church is a place to go and feel good about yourself. Is the Bible taught in your church, Senator? Or is church a social platform to see and be seen? I see no difference in what the Senator has described and going to the park, listening to a free concert, dropping a few dollars into a fund raising bucket, then getting ice cream for the kids. Do you?

Those who take the Bible seriously as a document of their faith have struggled over the last centuries trying to reconcile what they read in their Bible to what they read in the scientific literature (popular or professional). While scientists have been positing an old age for the cosmos, many traditional Christians have considered such a conclusion contradictory to the account of Genesis 1. The discussion has often been premised on the presupposition that God created all matter in seven days. Consequently, various camps have arisen offering diverse explanations of how long the seven days were and where those seven days ought to be located in time vis a vis cosmic history in order to accommodate this premise. In this paper we will reevaluate the premise that the Bible teaches that matter was created in seven days (of whatever length) and propose a new reading of Genesis 1 based on an ancient worldview (rather than the common concordist approaches) seeking to discover what the chapter proposes concerning the seven days of Genesis. Our findings will help us to reconsider what the Bible demands concerning the age of the cosmos.

For Walton, Genesis 1:3-5 is not about the creation of physical light, it is about the creation of time as an organizing principle of the universe. Similarly, Day 2 (1:6-8 ) is the basis of weather and Day 3 (1:9-13) is the basis of vegetation. These three functions (time, weather and vegetation) are the primary ways that God created how life worked.

For the entire presentation (~50 minutes, followed by a Q&A session), including Walton’s discussion of Days 4-6, the nature of God’s rest and the function of the created cosmos as a representation of the ANE temple (including the garden of Eden), click this link, then click on the photo of John Walton (bottom left). Walton speaks fluidly to his audience and obviously has command of this topic.

** Update ** John Hobbins has written a response to Dr. Walton’s position in which he rebuts the argument that “Genesis 1 is concerned only with the assignment of functions to things” and is “not concerned with the formational history of the things of which the universe is made.” Click here for John’s discussion.

** Update ** John has posted a formal reply by Dr. Walton to the previous post on Ancient Hebrew Poetry.

I’ve read about the Pope (meaning the position, not the current holder of that title) inspiring countless millions, as well as millions who look at him as the incarnate Antichrist. And some, like Kim Riddlebarger, who see him (the person) as:

a brilliant and formidable theologian (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger), who now presides over a church which officially denies the gospel of justification sola fide.

Which I suppose could be the same as the incarnate Antichrist, but at least Riddlebarger didn’t go so far as to name him “Satan’s Pastor”, as Iyov recently labeled fellow blogger John Hobbins.

However, a recent post by Michael Barber on “Singing in the Reign” about the Pope’s visit caught my eye as it promised to undercover some of things that may have otherwise slipped past the media’s eye.

There’s been much written about Pope Benedict’s visit to the US. You’ll find commentary in the media, in the Catholic blogosphere, in Catholic-friendly arenas, in anti-Catholic forums—like I said, a lot has been said. But there’s a lot about this visit that you’re not hearing. A lot of that has to do with the fact that most of the commentators don’t know how to contextualize what just happened. Here I want to do that. Just what happened with this visit. Well, the short answer is: way more than most people realize. Let me explain… and, as I said before, let me do so by helping to provide the framework for understanding why this visit was so big.

Barber goes to on to discuss the current state of Catholicism in Europe, the unprecedented greeting by President Bush, the opening remarks by President Bush and the Pope, and the Pope’s “long-fought war for truth in the face of relativism.”

He ends by discussing the final ceremonial song of the welcome ceremony, “The Battle Hymn of the Republic”, tying in the President’s now famous (infamous?) remark that he sees God when he looks in the eyes of the Pope to the opening phrase in the hymn: “Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord…” He concludes by noting with astonishment that the hymn sung by the army choir was based on the exact passage (Revelation 14) that was used for that day’s prayer from “the Liturgy of the Hours―the prayer book prayed by virtually all priests, religious and many lay people.”

14 Then I looked, and there was a white cloud, and One like the Son of Man was seated on the cloud, with a gold crown on His head and a sharp sickle in His hand. 15 Another angel came out of the sanctuary, crying out in a loud voice to the One who was seated on the cloud, “Use your sickle and reap, for the time to reap has come, since the harvest of the earth is ripe.” 16 So the One seated on the cloud swung His sickle over the earth, and the earth was harvested.

17 Then another angel who also had a sharp sickle came out of the sanctuary in heaven. 18 Yet another angel, who had authority over fire, came from the altar, and he called with a loud voice to the one who had the sharp sickle, “Use your sharp sickle and gather the clusters of grapes from earth’s vineyard, because its grapes have ripened.” 19 So the angel swung his sickle toward earth and gathered the grapes from earth’s vineyard, and he threw them into the great winepress of God’s wrath. 20 Then the press was trampled outside the city, and blood flowed out of the press up to the horses’ bridles for about 180 miles.

- Revelation 14:14-20 (HCSB)

Barber highlights the phrase “the press was trampled outside the city”, but doesn’t explain why. I can only suppose that he is meaning that God’s winepress is located outside of Rome. Is the suggestion that the events of Revelation are being divinely fulfilled by the Pope’s visit to the United States? Or does some event planning bureaucrat in Washington have an apocalyptic sense of humor?

Barber promises two more posts on the Pope’s visit. I’ll look forward to them to better know whether kissing the Pope’s ring (as Ms. Pelosi recently did) is bending my knee to acknowledge Christ as Lord or taking the mark of the Beast.