St. Augustine on Science & Scripture

Saint Augustine (A.D. 354-430) in his work The Literal Meaning of Genesis (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim) provided excellent advice for all Christians who are faced with the task of interpreting Scripture in the light of scientific knowledge. This translation is by J. H. Taylor inAncient Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41.

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]

Source

the rapture – the ultimate blasphemy

JC still loves Harold Camping though, God bless him.

cross-posted from Jottings by Michael Cardin

Many people might think Camping (!) a fool and wonder why I would waste my time writing about this. He is a fool and the millions he spent on his promotion campaign could have been much better spent. He would have made a much better testament to his Lord if he had followed the Gospel dictum to sell all he had (no small fortune) to give it to the poor and embrace a life of poverty and prayer and works of mercy. Instead he traduced the gospels utterly and brought Christianity into complete disrepute. The most depressing thing is that he has played into simple media binaries, in this case Christians vs unbelievers/secularists/atheists/humanists with Camping (!) himself as a key exemplar of what Christianity is all about. And of course Camping (!) is an exemplar of a type of Christianity or I would say a perversion of Christianity that has taken root in the US and, with the US global hegemon, is spreading throughout the world, like a noxious toxic bloom. In my opinion it’s a heresy of the worst order, a vile pernicious heresy that perverts and inverts the central Christian message. Thanks to Camping (!)  unfortunately a large proportion of of the world’s population believe that this pernicious theology is normative, traditional Christianity. It’s not, it’s a 19th century aberration that took root in the United States in the mid-19th century in a time of major transformation and upheaval.

It’s all based on a single word in the Christian scriptures. It’s found in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 and in the Greek in which it was written, the word is harpagesometha, ‘we shall be taken away’ or ‘we shall be caught up’, derived from the Greek verb harpazo. In the Latin translation the word is rapiemur, from the verb rapio. In the passage, Paul is talking about the very end, the final things of the world, the Second Coming and he says that when it occurs, first the dead will be raised up from their graves and then the living will be caught up from the earth to meet Jesus as he returns at the end of the age, which Paul and the audience for this letter considered imminent. The issue that is being addressed here is not an elaborate end times scenario, that we see in the modern Rapture cult but rather the concerns by some in the Thessalonian community that those who have died will  not participate in the final moment of the Lord’s return, or even, possibly by some, that those who are living who are alive at the Second Coming are in some way better or more fortunate than those who have died.This passage is written to disabuse  these Thessalonian Christians of such concern, or conceit. And the thing is, its context is the last things, the last day, the end of the world as we know it, the transformation and reconciliation of heaven and earth, that has always been key to the Christian proclamation. And throughout Christian history that’s how it’s always been understood and still is for the vast majority of the Christian world.

Read the rest here. -EP

george muller — trusting God

cross-posted from The Faithful

Background Check:
The main religious group in Germany by the late 1700s were the Lutherans. As Lutheranism developed, however, the original cry of Martin Luther “Salvation by Faith Alone” became “salvation by believing in the right doctrine.” Most Lutherans thought that if you believed the right things about God and Jesus, then you were going to go to heaven. Some believers, though, were reading their Bibles and firmly believed that it mattered just as much how one lived in Christ. These were called Pietists, and they focused on the reading of God’s word and in living holy lives before God.

His Story:
George Muller, a young man in the early 1800s, was raised a Lutheran, but became influenced by the Pietists in Germany. Excited to live a life of faith in God, he traveled to England to be a missionary to the Jews there. When he arrived in England, he met some members of the Brethren movement, who believed that Christians should not participate in the affairs of earthly government and in simple living.
Muller decided to live according to Scripture’s radical way. He and his wife gave away all of their property, and refused to accept a pastor’s salary, instead receiving only what was given to them through offerings. One of the main ways a church would receive money in those days is by families “renting” pews—paying a certain amount per year in order to have a seat reserved especially for them. Muller stopped that practice, saying that seats in a church should not be sold to the highest bidder. All of these changes left Muller in a difficult situation. He now had no regular income with which to pay for his food and clothing. He and his wife made due with little, but when they were in great need, they did not go to the wealthy people and ask for funds. Rather, they prayed to God and asked him for what they needed. During that time, they learned that God would provide for all their needs and they could live by depending only on the Lord.
A congregation in Bristol, England asked Muller to take the pulpit there. George began preaching about giving to the poor and needy. Suddenly, there was a terrible outbreak of cholera, a terrible disease, that killed many people in Bristol. Muller believed that God was calling him and his wife to assist the poor during this time. They helped many survive that disease. After this, Muller decided to open an orphanage for children without parents to live in and to learn God’s word in. Again, they prayed to the Lord and let their intentions be known, but they did not ask anyone for money. This was their experiment—would God provide for them, if they only ask for their needs in prayer?
But God came through. Money came in, a building was provided as well as all of the necessary food and clothing. Many times there was not enough food to feed all of the children, but the Mullers and their helpers would pray and—in the last minute before the meal—food or funds would come in to provide for the children’s needs. George wrote a journal of his experiences day by day, to testify to God’s power and provision. By the end of his life, the account books showed that George Muller gave away about 3 million dollars that he had never asked for!

WWJD
Jesus told his disciples to completely trust in God for their provision. They could feel free to completely surrender their whole lives to building God’s kingdom, because God would grant them everything they need. Jesus himself lived this out, depending on others to provide for him and his disciples as he traveled around and taught about God’s kingdom. George followed this principle precisely, and Jesus provided his example just as the economics of the whole world was changing, to show that trust in God never becomes outdated.

A Word From Our Sponsor:
Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. For this reason I say to you, do not be worried about your life, as to what you will eat or what you will drink; nor for your body, as to what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?… You of little faith! Do not worry then, saying, ‘What will we eat?’ or ‘What will we drink?’ or ‘What will we wear for clothing?’ … But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. So do not worry about tomorrow; for tomorrow will care for itself. Matthew 6:19-21, 25, 31, 33-34

Helpful Hint: Trusting in God’s Provision
Most people clamor and seek other people to provide for their daily needs—jobs, handouts, security from people. However, the Faithful look only to God for their support, only to Him for their provision. Anthony was in the desert, depending on God for food. George Muller never asked from anyone, but waited on God alone to provide. As we will see, Hudson Taylor sent his missionaries out without their provision to do the task, and they all prayed to God to provide. To be faithful to God is to trust that God would be the Good Father he is and to give all that his children need.

Check It Out:
The Autobiography of George Muller
George Muller of Bristol

strangers, saints and indians

This article made my Thanksgiving! – EP

*****

from the Wallstreet Journal

There’s little question that we live in a hyperpartisan country, and it might seem that only divine intervention can bring about the cooperation needed to move our nation forward. Perhaps in this light we might pause to remember it was only the cooperation of some very unlikely parties that made possible the first Thanksgiving.

The Pilgrims who set sail for the New World on the Mayflower in September 1620 embodied two groups: the Saints and the Strangers. The Saints were Christians who had fled England to Holland. Although they lived free of the religious intolerance of King James I, the Saints were still not happy with their Dutch surroundings. They sought a place where their children could be raised both Christian and English.

The Strangers, on the other hand, had no concern for religious freedom. These merchants, tradesmen and servants chiefly sought economic opportunity in the New World.

As we read from the historical accounts, the voyage was difficult and the first winter dire. At one point, only a small group of adults was strong enough to care for the others and oversee the building of the main common house. Miraculously, all 30 children survived.

When spring arrived, nearly half of the original 102 were dead from lack of food and medicine. Many of the survivors debated whether to sail back to England.

But on one early afternoon in March, as Captain Miles Standish was discussing defense plans in case of an Indian attack, a visitor appeared at the door of the common house. Surprisingly, it was an Indian.

Squanto showed the Pilgrims how to plant a fish with a seed and the fish was fertilizer. by Kyler

Samoset—who had learned to speak some English from a British sea captain who’d made an earlier voyage to what is now Maine—greeted them. He told them a large, hostile tribe, the Patuxets, had cleared the land they now inhabited but had been completely wiped out by a mysterious disease four years before. As a result, no Indian tribe would settle the area.

This unusual event—and what happened next—is recounted by Pilgrim Governor William Bradford in his work “Of Plymouth Plantation”:

“About the 16th of March [1621], a certain Indian came boldly amongst them and spoke to them in broken English,” Bradford wrote. Samoset “told them also of another Indian whose name was Squanto, a native of this place, who had been in England and could speak better English than himself. . . . Squanto continued with them and was their interpreter and was a special instrument sent of God for their good beyond their expectation.“

“Sent of God?” That sounds quaint to modern ears. But consider Squanto’s story. Many years before the arrival of the Pilgrims, he and several other Patuxet Indians had been kidnapped along the New England coast and transported to Spain to be sold into slavery. Providentially, Squanto was purchased by a group of Catholic friars who taught him about the Bible and Jesus Christ in preparation to send him back to America to be a missionary among his tribe.

After Squanto completed his Christian education, the friars freed him and enabled him to make his way to England. Learning English while working aboard British ships, he boarded a ship in 1619 to return to America. Upon his arrival Squanto learned of the Patuxets’ untimely demise.

With Squanto’s help, the Pilgrims were able to survive their first year. He taught them agriculture and fishing. As an interpreter, he also helped the Pilgrims establish a peace with the local Indian tribes that would last for close to 50 years.

In the fall of 1621, the Pilgrims reaped a bountiful harvest. To thank God for their deliverance and the help they had received from the Indians, Bradford held a three-day Thanksgiving feast inviting the Indians to join them in their celebration.

Squanto remained friendly with the Pilgrims until he succumbed to an unknown fever and died in 1622. Amazingly, he bequeathed his possessions to the Pilgrims, as Bradford would document, “as remembrances of his love.”

Considering the trials of his own life, it would have been understandable for Squanto to sow bitterness and seek war against the Pilgrims. Instead, his generosity and forgiveness enabled their survival.

Exemplifying St. Paul’s challenge to “not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good,” Squanto’s cooperation would not be forgotten by the Pilgrims. Nor should it today.

Mr. Murray is headmaster of Fourth Presbyterian School in Potomac, Md.

language & power

Often the outcome of vernacular translation [of the Bible] was that the missionary lost the position of being the expert. But the significance of translation went beyond that. Armed with a written vernacular Scripture, converts to Christianity invariably called into question the legitimacy of all schemes of foreign domination — cultural, political and religious. Here was an acute paradox: the vernacular Scriptures and the wider cultural and linguistic enterprise on which translation rested provided the means and occasion for arousing a sense of national pride, yet it was the missionaries–foreign agents–who were the creators of that entire process. I am convinced that this paradox decisively undercuts the alleged connection often drawn between missions and colonialism. Colonial rule was irreparably damaged by the consequences of vernacular translation–and often by other activities of missionaries.

-Lamin Sanneh

How to synthesize these two thoughts? TBC… -EP

“christian”

After a conversation with a friend, I have been thinking about the word “Christian” and how the meaning is a varied, almost subjective label in this world. (Especially because of some of the awful acts we collectively perpetrate as Christians.)

The word Christian appears several times in the New Testament. Most notably in Acts 11:26, The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch. However, by context, Christian was a derogatory name assigned to the followers of Christ. 1 Peter 4:16, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name.

I am amazed how radical that is: to not protest an epithet, shy away or disclaim a name used to persecute but to reclaim it by praising God for it. I am also struck by how the act of not being ashamed or defensive or proud but thankful for the name Christian is still a relevant & difficult struggle 2000 years later.

camel or rope?

I am reading The Poisonwood Bible. Although this story about an evangelical baptist minister and his family’s mission to the Belgian Congo is often horrifying for a variety of reasons, there are some interesting thoughts about Christianity within it as well.

Here is an excerpt from the novel of a conversation between a Catholic priest and, Leah, one of the minister’s daughters:

“Have you hear the songs they sing here in Kilanga?” he asked. “They’re very worshipful. It’s a grand way to begin a church service, singing

a Congolese hymn to the rainfall on the seed yams. It’s quite easy to move from there to the parable of the mustard seed. Many parts of the Bible make good sense here, if only you change a few words.” He laughed. “And a lot of whole chapters, sure, you just have to throw away.”

“Well, it’s every bit God’s word, isn’t it?” Leah said.

“God’s word, brought to you by a crew of romantic idealists in a harsh desert culture eons ago, followed by a chain of translators two thousand years long.”

Leah stared at him.

“Darling, did you think God wrote it all down in the English of King James himself?”

“No, I guess not.”

“Think of all the duties that were perfectly obvious to Paul or Matthew in that old Arabian desert that are pure nonsense to us now. All that foot washing, for example. Was it really for God’s glory, or just to keep the sand out of the house?”

Leah sat narrow-eyed in her chair, for once stumped for the correct answer.

“Oh, and the camel. Was it a camel that could pass throught the eye of a needle more easily than a rich man? Or a coarse piece of yarn? The Hebrew words are the same, but which one did they mean? If it’s a camel, the rich man might as well not even try. But if it’s the yarn, he might well succeed with a lot of effort, you see?”

Curious, I decided to verify this interpretation of the verse in question (Matthew 19:24). For indeed there is a huge difference between a camel going through the eye of a needle verses thick yarn. In the meantime, I brought up this interesting conversation piece to an acquaintance. He was skeptical. There are so many scholars, translations, and interpretations of the Bible, wouldn’t this information be noted?

So far I haven’t found anything about the Hebrew word for camel and yarn being the same but I did find a scholar, George Lamsa, who sheds some light on the verse. His theories are based on the presupposition that the speech in the Bible (though recorded in Greek and Latin) was Aramaic.

The Aramaic word gamla means camel, a large rope and a beam. The meaning of the word is determined by its context. If the word riding or burden occurs then gamla means a camel, but when the eye of a needle is mentioned gamla more correctly means a rope. There is no connection anywhere in Aramaic speech or literature between camel and needle, but there is a definite connection between rope and needle.

-George Mamishisho Lamsa, Gospel Light

Interesting. However, as my acquaintance mentioned earlier, why wouldn’t this information be widely known? Why isn’t the verse noted for this possible translation? Turns out, Lamsa has been criticized as a “cultic figure” prone to “mistranslations.” He also seems generally alone in his interpretations of the Bible so….

Regardless, I find language & the Bible infinitely fascinating at the moment. -EP