Dressing Up

A couple weekends ago, my wife and I went to a wedding. One of the interesting things to do at an event like this is to look around and see what other people are wearing. It is especially interesting to me to see how the men have decided to present themselves.

Southern California in 2017 has a hyper-casual society. One of the consequences of our slavish devotion to ease and comfort in dress seems to be that many men are actually unprepared when that rare occasion does come up that still, at least in principle, demands some level of formality. A wedding seems to be such an occasion, at least for the present. The result is a lot of men making a lot of simple mistakes that prevent their outfit from coming together nicely. I decided I list the four most common garb gaffes I saw.

  1. Clothes don’t fit. Plain and simple. And ninety percent of the time, that means too big. A lot of men wear shirts that are just too big, sometimes much too big. This looks awfully unflattering, and it’s such an easy thing to fix. Often, I’ll see men’s sleeves beginning down their arms. When sizing a shirt, the best rule of thumb is to make sure the seam that attaches the sleeve to the shoulder is right at the top of your shoulder. It shouldn’t be slinking down your upper arm. On the other hand, if the seam is up on your collarbone, try the next size up. Formal pants should break at the ankle (or higher if you’re feeling bold) and not bunch up like an accordion around your shoe. If you’re sitting or crossing your legs, you should be flashing some sock. Honestly, simply wearing clothing that fits would make a big difference. And since I’m at it, this goes for causal clothing too. I constantly see men wearing t-shirts and polo shirts about two sizes too large. It’s like an epidemic! Hint: if your short sleeve shirt goes to your elbow, try something smaller.
  2. Bad shoes. We’ve all seen it: guys trying to get away with wearing black work boots or, worse, black tennis shoes in otherwise business casual or semi-formal wear. This does NOT work. If you don’t have any, go ahead and buy a pair of true dress shoes—yes, even if you think you’ll only need them this once. It’s worth it. In fact, the dress shoes will look better on you even when you’re strolling along in blue jeans. Get the shoes. Don’t quibble. Get them. I’ll wait. (And please don’t be the bro wearing Converse with a suit if you’re over 17. It’s not cute past that age).
  3. The wrong trousers. I think the reason men wear bad pants to a semi-formal occasion is because they don’t even own the right kind. That’s a problem in itself. But if you ever are in possession of a wedding invitation but not in possession of any dress pants, head to your local department store. Do not attempt, under any circumstances, to try to “dress up” dark work pants, like Dickies, or black jeans. Do not wear cargo pants to the event. (Actually, just don’t wear cargo pants ever.) Khaki and chino pants can be fine in a semi-casual atmosphere, but know what you’re doing. The safest bet is dress pants … that fit.
  4. The fourth trouble area I will call “accents”. I mostly mean belt and socks. This isn’t hard, but you’ll often see slight blunders here that throw off a man’s look. First, match your belt and your shoes (are they brown or black?). Your socks should approximately match the color of your pants. Never wear white socks (unless wearing a white suit, but if you are, then this blog isn’t for you—you’re already dressing on a higher level entirely). If wearing dress pants, wear a narrower leather dress belt. (Not any black leather belt is dressy enough to work.) If wearing khakis or chinos, a wider leather belt can look nice—just know what you’re after.

Knocking out a good getup is easy. And if all the men did it, it wouldn’t mean they they’d all look the same; they’d just all look good. There is plenty of room for variety. The main obstacle is simply that many men either don’t care enough (and this includes the unwillingness to spend the money) or just don’t know how to build an outfit. This isn’t entirely their fault, since we are a generation or two into a very casual society. But c’mon, guys. Wedding receptions can look better than this!


The Padres in Brown

The San Diego Padres, also known as the hard luck Padres, los pobres Padres … you get the picture. San Diego fans are acquainted with grief. Even now, the Friars are sitting on a .447 record for the season with no hope of postseason play. This is about average, actually, since as of 2015, their all-time win percentage stood at 46.4. But, there’s always next year (and there always will be). Needless to say, the Padres haven’t made a name as an aspirational team like, for instance, the New York Yankees—the most successful team in baseball historically, with an all-time win percentage of 56.9 and a whopping 27 championship titles.

But never fear, because there is something the Padres can do to improve their image. I’m talking uniforms. The Padres should bring back the brown.

A few years ago, I’d never thought I’d say that. In 2004, when Petco Park opened for the first time, the team uniforms also got a makeover, and the colors were changed to sand (a light tan), navy blue, and white. I really liked it. It looked subdued and professional, and incorporated the seaside location of the gorgeous new park. I thought they should never change it. But the Padres have never stuck with one uniform for too long. After several years, the sand was replaced with light gray. This looked nice, but maybe too subdued. Maybe even … a bit boring.

Let’s wind the clock back a little. I’m not going to fact check this, but I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that the Padres, though a young MLB team, born in 1969, have altered their look more than any other MLB team. (The Yankees never have in over a hundred years, and the they won’t, either.) In the spring of ’69 the brand new Padres sported brown and gold. They wore some combination of brown and gold for quite some time, adding orange as an accent color in 1980. Beginning in 1985, the Padres dumped the gold and used brown and orange on pinstriped jerseys. In 1991, the brown was ditched and the Padres thence used navy blue and orange, retaining a white home jersey with pinstripes, but blue pinstripes. (Perhaps thinking this was the secret to the Yankees’ success.) Remarkably, the Padres kept this basic look until 2003.

In 2016, the Padres gave a nod to the past in two ways. One was introducing a light yellow-orange as an accent color. The ball cap with a white S and yellow-orange D was reminiscent of the ’90s ball caps. Also, they introduced a brown and gold home alternate jersey, worn on Fridays. This is paired with a brown and gold cap resembling the cap worn between 1972 and 1984. The yellow-orange was a one-season deviation, but they kept the browns in 2017. And you know what? Those alternate jerseys look good!

Brown, properly executed, has at least three things in its favor. One, it recalls our roots. The Padres began in brown and used it a primary color for 21 seasons. In this way, it makes sense. This would not be an arbitrary color change, but a deliberate shift towards something that is culturally San Diegan and identifiable as such. Which brings me to thing number two: brown is unique. No other MLB team uses brown. How many teams use blue? About half of all the teams! Brown and gold uniforms would stand apart. Third, when done right it looks good. Really good. (See 1972 for how not to do it.)

Naturally, I have my own ideas about implementation. I don’t want some kind of “replica” jersey. It would be a modern iteration, using brown and gold as the coloring scheme. Pants would be white or gray because colored pants don’t go over well in baseball like they do in football. Don’t know why; they just don’t. But I’m not the only one with ideas. Below are a couple fake mock-ups of what this might look like.


This mock-up is created by a guy named John Brubaker. He calls is a “little PhotoShop dream of a better looking team.”


This is also a mock-up by the same guy. Now, below are some real pictures of the Padres’ current brown alt jerseys:


Don’t those look good? These shouldn’t be the alt jerseys. These should be the main jerseys! We should lose the blue and reform our identity around the brown. We need to stop the changing around all the time (like the yellow-orange from last year). When someone asks what the Padres’ colors are, the question should have a simple answer―something you can take to the bank, something that identifies the franchise, linking it to the past and carrying on as long as balls and strikes, innings and outs, stolen bases and double plays shall endure.




Tagged ,

The Cambridge Clarion: A Brief Review

I went and bought another Bible. But with good reason, I think.

Around the time I switched from the ESV to the NIV, I had to buy a Bible (we had not so much as an NIV in the house; I had been test reading it in digital format only). So I did. I bought a $30 Slimline NIV, one of the few text-only, black-letter NIVs available at the local Bible book store. It has a synthetic cover (a nice enough synthetic cover, but synthetic). I did not know if this would satisfy me long term. Needless to say, after carrying it for about a year and a half, I decided to buy something better.

Crossway, publisher of the ESV in the U.S., has done a mighty fine job of making sensible leather-bound editions of the ESV. Zondervan, publisher of the NIV, has not. I know it hasn’t always been that way, because my wife has an old, red, top grain leather NIV she kept at work. But searching the Zondervan website for an NIV Bible leaves your head swimming in a sea of specialty study Bibles. Their text-only Bible selection is lousy. I knew I would have to look elsewhere, but I didn’t know where to go. Maybe there were no high quality NIV Bibles! This was discouraging.

But a few Bing searches unlocked the gate into the world of premium Bibles. There are a lot of people who are serious about the quality of their Bibles. And you know what? I think the Bible deserves it. I would not think twice about dropping $200 on a mobile telephone which will be replaced in three or four years. Why budget just $30 for a Bible?

The premium Bible world, I discovered, is dominated by a few very good publishing houses that produce the best Bibles on earth. These include Cambridge University Press, R.L. Allan Bible, and Schuyler Bible Publishers. Crossway has also joined the fray with its Heirloom ESV, and they’ve done a good job. It is widely accepted that the best outlet for these is evangelicalbible.com.

I researched my options, and in the end I picked the Cambridge Clarion Bible. J. Mark Bertrand gave it a rave review over at his blog, an authoritative resource on Bible design, and it appeared to be all I wanted from a Bible. I had to save my pennies for two and a half months to be on budget (boy, it felt longer than it sounds), but my Bible has finally arrived. So excited. Here’s a review.

Binding and Cover

This Bible has a quality, sewn binding, as opposed to a glued binding. In a Bible of this price, a sewn binding goes without saying. It’s the cover that’s more exciting, and a lot more tangible. It’s black goatskin, hand-stitched around the edges. It is amazingly soft and pliable. More importantly, it is also durable, superlatively handsome, and gives it that new Bible smell. Just holding the Bible in your hand feels nice. The binding and cover flexion also combine to allow the Bible to be laid flat without pulling shut, even in Genesis or Revelation. The spine of the Bible features gold stamped lettering, while the front cover is beautifully blank.


The paper is also very nice. True, it is a bit thin (28 g/m² weight), but has surprising opacity. Nonetheless, there is some ghosting. To ameliorate this, Cambridge has used line-matched printing, meaning that a line of text on one side of a page precisely overlaps the line of text on the opposite side of the page. This reduces the ghosting effect so significantly, that it almost ceases to be an issue. Finally, the outside edges of the pages feature art-gilding, giving them the classic pinkish gold sheen.

Typography and Format

Since the main purpose of the Bible is for reading, the typography and format are of great importance. The text used in the Clarion is a typeface called Lexicon No. 1, in size 8.75. That may sound a bit small, but I was impressed by how clear it is. Besides, it is larger than the type in the NIV Slimline Bible I was using, so for me it is an improvement. Lexicon No. 1 really is a good-looking typeface, with wonderful lowercase “e”s and striking punctuation marks. The words of Christ are printed in black.
This is a cross-reference Bible. Often, such Bibles have two columns of text per page, with references positioned between them, as in my leather ESV cross reference Bible. The Clarion is set in a single column per page, more like a normal book, with references in the margins. It’s wonderful. I would say that this page layout was the foremost consideration for me that tipped the scales in favor of the Clarion over other premium Bible options. (Schuyler’s Caxton Bible, which comes in a few tempting colors, would also have been a major contender, but is, alas, only available in the NLT. Yes … the NLT.)


The Bible comes with fifteen maps, a color-coded map index, a concordance with 2,474 word entries (I counted them … just kidding), and a weights and measures table—not necessarily in that order. Another feature: two long red ribbon markers.

Size and Weight

The Bible is small, at 19 cm long by 14.5 cm wide. But it is chunky at about 4 cm thick. I like it. This ain’t no skinny Bible. When you pick it up, though, it feels lighter than it should be. I don’t know if this is due to its blockish appearance (which makes it look heavy) or to a light coating of pixie dust.

In Closing, a Word About the Translation

The New International Version is not so new anymore. The full NIV Bible was published first in 1978 and quickly gained wide acceptance among evangelicals, eventually becoming the most popular English translation. By now, the NIV is in fact the Bible that many adult Christians grew up on and memorized. The publishers of the NIV (rather predictably) claim it to be “accurate, readable, and clear.” In the case of the NIV, it is my assessment that it does an excellent job in living up to its own promises.
When it comes to how to translate the Bible, we often hear about the spectrum between formal equivalence and functional equivalence. We know that this is not an either-or choice, but a continuum and that a translation can be the product of more or less of one or the other. However, we also often hear that the NIV uses the thought-for-thought approach of functional equivalence, while the NASB and ESV use the word-for-word approach of formal equivalence. That is, translations are often positioned as examples of one or the other method. This is a bit misleading. The NASB does tend to employ the strictest form of formal equivalence among the popular, evangelical English translations (NASB, NKJV, ESV, CSB, NIV, NET, NLT, CEV) and suffers for it. I will not comment on translation philosophies here. But I do want to point out that the NIV is not by any stretch far out on the idiomatic (as opposed to literal) end of the spectrum. The reason I said that the contrast between the ESV and the NIV is misleading is because the ESV and the NIV are really not that far from each other. This being the case, these are my two favorite translations—the NIV being my day-to-day preference because it renders so many passages much more gracefully than the ESV.

The Christian Standard Bible (CSB), which purports to be more conservative than the NIV, is in between these two, filling the already small niche between the ESV and the NIV in terms of formal equivalence. (One needs only read the marketing for the CSB to see that it puts a premium on adhering to something between formal equivalence and functional equivalence, which it calls … drum roll please … “optimal equivalence”!) This is a bit of smoke and mirrors since both the ESV and the NIV also land somewhere in the middle of the spectrum and each translation team probably thought their own choices were optimal, given what they believed a translation should be. The NIV itself often retains formal equivalence, insofar as this will still result in natural-sounding English. Reading a more idiomatic translation such as the NLT will reveal just how traditional and familiar the NIV sounds. The CSB, I might add, tends not only to lose the NIV’s advantage of clarity but also fails to retain the traditional beauty of the ESV or the NIV.

The NIV was updated in 1984 and again in 2011. The 2011 update to the NIV is 95% the same as the 1984 text, but does have a number of positive changes. You can read about these in a paper by the current NIV translators explaining the 2011 updates. For one, the new NIV is more gender accurate in rendering pronouns and other referents. This increased accuracy is what caused the greatest hubbub over the 2011 update among conservative evangelicals (with whom I myself identify). The “neutral he/him” is seldom used anymore, and the NIV translation committee has the stats to prove it. The 2011 update seeks to use gender-inclusive language where, and only where, the original authors of Scripture intended gender-inclusivity. I think a convincing argument can be made that neglecting to do this is less faithful to the original text. The ESV goes a fair way in using gender-inclusive language (often using “the one who” instead of “he who” and things like that), but not quite so far as to be as accurate as the NIV. The CSB, though a newer translation than the ESV, does even more poorly in this area. The NASB? Forget it. It even uses the phrase “sons of Israel” to refer to the Israelites. That is an unclear translation.

I will mention a couple other changes since it might be assumed that any “modernizing” of the NIV would tend toward a “loosening” of the translation, making more idiomatic at every turn. Actually, some changes “tighten” it up a bit. For instance, the translators say that “for the sake of smoothness of style and facility of reading, a number of uses of the connective gar (‟for” or ‟because”) were left untranslated in the 1984 NIV. A select number of these have been restored where they seem particularly crucial to preserving the flow of thought.” Three cheers for “for”! Next, “the flesh” is now used in most places to translate the Greek word sarx where the 1984 text had “sinful nature.” “The flesh” is more literal and less interpretive, and although it most cases “sinful nature” does capture the right meaning, the 2011 team decided to change it. Also, “Translations that leave open important scholarly options have often been chosen. Thus, for instance, ‘righteousness from God’ in Romans 1:17 and related passages has been changed to ‘righteousness of God,’ and ‘observing the law’ (erga nomou) has been changed to ‘works of the law.’” In other words, in important places where a literal rendering leaves an ambiguity, the ambiguity has been reintroduced in the 2011, in verses where the ambiguity was previously eliminated by the translators’ interpretation. And as a final example, in 1 John 2:16, the previous NIV said “For everything in the world—the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does—comes not from the Father but from the world,” whereas the 2011 text brings back the old, familiar “the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life”―with the translators remarking: “Has anyone really improved on the KJV rendering of these three expressions, to which the updated NIV returns? […] The language still communicates, and the poetry and style to which the NIV has returned is magnificent.”

To close, I will just state the obvious. Having an expensive Bible has never made anyone a mite holier than they were before. A Bible is not like the open box of baking soda in the back of your refrigerator: its mere presence does not keep you cleaner. I think the apostle James said it best: “Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.”

Tagged , , ,

Why Would God Take a Long to Time to Make the World?

Christians disagree about the age of the earth. Some believe it to be no more than about ten thousand years old, while others have been convinced that the planet is something like four and a half billion years old. That’s a huge difference, to say the least. This controversy can at times become quite heated, but I believe that it will in time be more or less resolved and the Christian church will reach a consensus. But as for now, we have to wrestle with the issue.

There are many things to discuss regarding this that I will not discuss here. But if the earth is billions of years old, one of the natural questions to ask is why God would take that kind of time to make it. Surely an omnipotent God could have done things much faster. In fact, Augustine, in seeking to resist ideas about pagan gods, believed that God created the world instantaneously, and that the six-day sequence in Genesis 1 was a poetic framework. He may have been right about that last part, but most of us would agree that God created the world sequentially over the space of some time, whether 144 hours, or billions of years. Did he have to do this? Even six solar earth-days is longer than God would need. But billions of years? Billions of years is so mind-bogglingly long, that John MacArthur believes it would have been a giant waste of time, that God had no reason to use so much time when he had other goals in mind, such as kicking off redemptive history, beginning with Adam and Eve. I respect Dr. MacArthur greatly, but the idea of billions of years being a waste of God’s time is illogical. For God, a thousand years are like a day. He is not daunted by any length of time. But still, why would he take so long if he did not have to? I want to offer a few thoughts on that question from a layman’s perspective.

First, I think it is safe to say that God takes the long view of things. He looks ahead and he doesn’t rush. Think about how God works in the lives of individuals. God transforms people. He changes them slowly, over time, using life experiences, difficulties, and discipline. Along the way, there are many missteps and retractions on our part, but over a lifetime, people are brought to an increasing maturity in Christian living. This can be a painful process sometimes with challenges that come from our own sinful inclinations. But the Holy Spirit is in us and God teaches us through trials. Hebrews 12:11 reminds us that discipline at God’s hand may not seem pleasant at the time, but that “later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.” The idea of producing a harvest only emphasizes the fact that this is a drawn out process. I once asked my wife why God didn’t just change people all at once. She surprised me by saying that maybe he couldn’t. That is to say, if God immediately baked into us the results of a lifetime of growth, it would not be real. You would have the effects without the requisite causes. We cannot be altered that way, or at least, that’s not how God chooses to work. This seems like a valid consideration and will inform our views about the creation process.

Second, I will point out that God took the long view in redemptive history. I have sometimes wondered why God waited so long before sending Messiah to save the world. God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. This is what God had always meant to do. In fact, it was the crux of God’s dealing with man for God’s own glory. He came to save us from the consequences of our sin and cleanse a people for his own possession. So why did he let thousands of years pass between the Fall and the cross? First, there were thousands of years before God called Abraham. Then Abraham had Isaac, who had Jacob, who had Joseph, who went to Egypt, where his descendants were enslaved for four hundred grueling years before—finally—we get the old covenant under Moses’s leadership, which has all kinds of clues within its rituals about the Messiah. Then, there are some 1,500 more years of trial and error on the part of God’s chosen nation, before our Redeemer arrives on the scene, at long last! Why did so many people and so many generations have to live and die before Jesus came to save the world? I don’t fully know. But the basic answer is, for some reasons known to God, the world just wasn’t ready. It wasn’t fully prepared. In Galatians chapter 4, Paul writes, “The heir is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father. So also, when we were underage, we were in slavery under the elemental spiritual forces of the world. But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship.” The metaphor of we being “underage” and under guardians “until the time set by [our] father” shows that there was prep work God had to do. Most of human history has been lived prior to Christ’s first advent. And even now, as we wait with eagerness for Jesus to come again, God has been biding his time for two thousand years, and he will bring this age to its consummation only when the time is right.

What do these considerations show? They show that God reaches his planned ends using intermediate means. He doesn’t just skip to the results. The results must actually have resulted from prior causes. God lets things play out over time to get them the way he wants them, rather than simply manufacturing a finished product out of whole cloth. But wouldn’t we say that creation is a unique case? There was nothing prior to God’s creation, so God was, at least this once, making a finished product from whole cloth, was he not? We call this creation out of nothing, or creation ex nihilo. This is what I want to think about. Everyone (young-earther and old-earther alike) agrees that the earth had to be prepared in stages for human habitation. In fact, we know that Augustine was wrong about an instantaneous creation because in Genesis 1:2 we find an earth, but one not yet ready for us. It is “formless and empty.” I think the old American Standard Version gives the proper sense here, when it says “waste and void.” We might think formless implies some shapeless cloud, but the earth has an ocean (the deep), so it is a solid planet. But it’s not ready to be peopled. It’s a desolate waste. It’s not livable. What God accomplishes over the following six days of creation will make the earth a beautiful “biodome” for Adam and Eve. So let’s think about what it takes to turn a waste and void earth into a habitat for humanity.

Many of the resources humans depend on in order to thrive appear to have resulted from long processes—thousands or millions of years long. For instance, there are things like sandstone and other sedimentary rock, mountain ranges (which affect weather patterns and the water cycle), topsoil, coal, crude oil and other biodeposits. Keep in mind that I am not (here) putting these examples forth as evidence for an old earth per se; I am putting them forth as examples of things that could help Christians understand that God may have had reason to take a long time in preparing the earth for Adam and Eve. In this blog, I do not mean to ask whether the earth is old, but only to ask whether we can see any plausible reason an almighty and unlimited God would have to create the world over long ages (from our perspective) rather than all at once or in some other miraculously truncated period of time. Would doing so be no more than a waste of time, or might there be a case in which taking an extended period of time would be preferred, or even the only honest method?

To go back to my examples of topography, sedimentary rocks, fossil fuels, etc., let me just reiterate that these things, which we have in abundance today, by all accounts appear to be the results of very long, slow processes. Yet we need them to live, or at least to be able to launch and sustain advanced human civilization—or, to put it another way, to be capable of fulfilling God’s mandate to “fill the earth and subdue it” and “rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” To have these resources in place on Day Six required either 1) an extended amount of time, or 2) a miraculous creation of a kind that would bring about prematurely what would under normal circumstances have taken a long, long time, and would appear to have done so. That is to say, the presence of these things tells a story about the past.

Young earth astronomer Jason Lisle has made the point that any attempt to calculate ages based on present-day observations requires assumptions be made about initial conditions. I concede that this must be the case. However, we may rightfully ask what assumptions are legitimate. Below is a picture of a palm tree outside my workplace.


Anyone who studies this tree for a few minutes would see that the trunk appears to be made up of layer after layer of the old bases of palm leaves. Now, I know nothing about palm trees. But this tree trunk tells a layman like me a clear story about the past. I feel certain just from looking at it that the trunk is made of layers that grew and broke off in stages as the palm tree got taller. The tree tells a story. There is no mistaking it. I have to wonder if God would create a tree instantaneously in this state. Honestly, I can hardly imagine that he would. To do so would be to create, along with the tree, an implied but false history where no history really existed. I find this a troubling idea. And, as we observed in other areas, God does not seem to skip the necessary steps when making anything that requires a succession of real causes. In other words, God does not seem to save himself time by immediately (i.e., apart of mediate causes) and instantaneously bringing about a thing which can otherwise only be the consequence of preceding events.

Creating a grown man (or a grown salamander) would necessarily not be like this. A grown man may conceivably be created whole and functioning without any signs of having aged to get to his current state, even if we know of no other instance in which a man has not aged. Maturity and signs of age are not always the same thing and may not always correspond. Topsoil and crude oil, however, cannot exist in any state that would not show signs of age, since each is by nature the result of the decay of previously living matter. And there are so many biodeposits we need in order to flourish! God could, I suppose, have created mountain ranges that did not show signs of age, but our mountain ranges do, as they are so obviously the result of plate tectonic activity (as most young earth geologists agree) and seemingly millions of years of it. These are just a couple examples.

In closing let me repeat the question. Is there any good reason we can think of that an omnipotent God would have taken long ages to create the world? I answer yes. This is because: a) there are features of the planet and its biosphere that would have required under normal conditions thousands or millions of years of prep time (including many thousand of generations of organic things living and dying); and b) some of these features are requisite for human habitation; c) God, who is timeless, may have decided to accomplish the preparation of these features without resorting to means which would bypass the necessary causes, because by doing it this way, d) God would avoid embedding within his handiwork a discernable and compelling story which was in fact false. For these reasons, God would not have been wasting his time in creating progressively over billions of earth years’ worth of time before finishing his creative work with the creation of humankind.

I actually believe that most of what I have said here is not very controversial. The controversy comes in because nature is not the only story-telling revelation God has left to us. He has also given us the Bible, which tells stories not in clues but in language. The debate comes in because there is a question over whether the Bible’s account puts a severe restraint on the age of the earth (or of the entire cosmos), limiting it to about ten thousand earth years’ worth of time. If so, it would take precedence over the apparent story told by nature, leaving us with two more difficult options. Either 1) that means we have a miraculous creation of a kind that would bring about prematurely what would under normal circumstances have taken a long, long time, and would appear to have done so; or 2) the scientific consensus is way, way off in all its reading of the facts and in reality the earth appears to be quite young—the features I mentioned being attributed to the catastrophic and (under this interpretation) globe-engulfing flood of Noah’s day. This latter interpretation is becoming more untenable over time. But these are not questions I will tackle today.

In an era where it is ever more important for Christians to lock arms in defense of a thoroughly Biblical worldview, why should I blog about this disagreement within the church? One reason is that I am a recovering young-earther, and so I have inherited the natural zeal of anyone who has ever made a major turn in their thinking about a big question. But more importantly, I think this is a question that the conservative Bible-believing church has to wrestle with for two important reasons. First, because truth matters—plain and simple. We need to seek the truth―and the evidence for an old world is weighty. Second, I think the question has somewhat urgent apologetic ramifications. I believe that in a hundred years, this question will be resolved (on the old-earth side), but that the transition will not be easy, as it was surprisingly difficult for the church to let go of the idea that the earth was literally fixed and unmoving. I think there is need for respectful and mutually sympathetic discussion between Bible-revering Christians on this matter and that too often the sides misunderstand each other or, unfortunately, even slander the other side (often “you’re compromisers” from young-earthers, or “you’re stupid” from old-earthers). This needs to end. In closing, I will mention that I was partially inspired to write this blog by the Creation Project of the Henry Center for Theological Understanding that is facilitating the very kind of discussion about this topic that I am eager to see. One public discussion that can serve as an example on how dialogue should be conducted was the debate between Albert Mohler and C. John Collins.

Tagged , , ,

The Bibliotheca Bible: a Short Review

In the first quarter of 2015 my wife ordered me a special Bible for my birthday (which is in the summer). The Bible had been funded on Kickstarter and was still in production, with plans to ship that year. But things did not go as expected for Adam Lewis Greene and his Bible printing project. Some surprises were good―he received far more financial backing than he thought possible. That being so, he decided to increase the manufacturing quality of his project. Other surprises included the unanticipated difficulty and effort involved in “respectfully updating” an archaic English translation (more on this later), and other production hiccups. In the end, the project took far longer than he thought. It was finally packaged and delivered in December 2016. Greene calls the four-volume Bible set Bibliotheca. In an e-mail update dated 5 October 2016, Greene said:

I sincerely wish we had been able to deliver the finished product sooner. We did our best—and I’m confident that because we took the time we did, we have made the best books we could have shipped to you. The editorial team, the researchers, the proofreaders, the scholars, and Kösel have all brought their expertise to the table to create something that I trust you’ll find enjoyable, enriching, and enduring.

The Bible is a four-volume set. Each volume is very well made, having a cloth-over-board cover of a gray tone, with gold embossed title on the spine. Greene decided to spare no expense on the binding and the paper. The paper is a woodless, stone-based paper that is a hearty thickness for a Bible and allows very little “ghosting” of the text (where the writing on the other side of a sheet shows through). The books feel good in the hand, and are lighter than your typical Bible because it’s not the whole thing in one. Oh, and each one has a ribbon marker. Nice touch.

The main attraction of the Bible is that the text is laid out like that of a normal book. There are no verse or chapter numbers, no footnotes, study notes, or cross references embedded in the text. It is a clean and easy reading experience, without all the clutter we have somehow come to expect in our Bibles. The typeface (font) used for these books is a custom serif drawn by Greene himself especially for this project. Greene is a book designer by trade. The lines of text are aligned on the left, not justified (aligned on both sides), and I really prefer this. Even the ESV six-volume readers Bible and the NIV Books of the Bible have justified text, as do most books. This, I suppose, is because editors think the evenness on both sides looks better (it may also fit more text on each page). But justifying a column of text requires the word processing program to adjust the size of the spaces between words on each line. The unequal spacing that results can create visible “rivers” of white space on a page. Left-aligned text avoids this, as it leaves the spacing alone. Who cares if the text is “ragged” on the right side of the column?

The space between the lines (called the leading (pronounced “lehd-ing”)) in Bibliotheca is nice and generous. This reduces the density of the text on the page and makes for more pleasant reading. It is easier for the eye to track from one line to the next one. And the font size itself looks to be around size 10 (it is impossible to tell precisely). Many Bibles have smaller letters and lines packed closer together. This is understandable since the Bible is, well, really really long, and if you want it all inside of one volume, the laws of physics dictate that you’ll have to make some trade-offs. By splitting the Bible into four volumes, Greene was able to make each volume more spacious, with nice thick paper and a excellent typographical layout.

So, what’s not to like about Bibliotheca? Adam Greene and company really poured their hearts into this project and the end product is beautiful. There is only one possible place for critique, and that is the translation itself. Can a translation affect the reading experience, just like the size of the font and quality of the paper? Of course it can.

The text of Bibliotheca is based on the American Standard Version, published in 1901. The ASV was in turn based on the Revised Version, which was a revision of the King James Version, done in England in the 1800s. Adam Greene’s original idea was simply to replace the thees and thous and whatnot with modern equivalents. But updating a translation, it turns out, is not so easy. He ended up using some more of his funding on hiring some translation specialists of some kind to help with the update. The result is probably just what Greene was hoping for. (I heard an interview with Greene where he talked about what he wanted in the translation.) Now, I do not know how different the Bibliotheca text is from the original ASV. Granted, all the thees and thous are gone, but this was no “modernization” of the ASV. The Bibliotheca text has that very old and somewhat distant sound to it that some readers are sure to love. I, however, find reading it to be like chewing tough meat. For instance, on page 309 of volume I, we read about the time Balaam “smote” his “ass” because she stopped walking. On page 26, we read that the waters of Noah’s flood “assuaged.” We sometimes―though not often―talk of assuaging anger, but not water. Archaisms like these are not the only problem with this kind of translation. The phrasing and word order can also be odd and unnatural. Again, there are others who really enjoy this. To them, this is what “the Bible” sounds like! But the result for me, sadly, is that I often find myself reading my NIV Books of the Bible edition, a single-volume NIV readers Bible, instead of this beautiful and lovingly crafted set.

Some final notes: The original ASV is one of the few Bibles to transliterate the Tetragrammaton in the Hebrew Old Testament. That is, the covenant name God revealed to Moses―Jehovah, or Yahweh. The ASV uses “Jehovah.” Most English Bibles, including the KJV, follow the practice of the Greek Septuagint (LXX) and use “Lord” (often in small caps) wherever the Tetragrammaton occurs, as did the Apostles in authoring the New Testament under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit. (The Tetragrammaton does not appear in the Greek New Testament at all, even in quotations from the Old Testament from passages that include it―since the Apostles quoted the Old Testament out of the LXX.) There is some controversy as to which practice is better. Bibliotheca, an update of the ASV, employs “YHWH” in small caps. This looks very nice. I think it was better than retaining the ASV’s “Jehovah” since there is even more controversy about whether we should use that particular pronunciation. This in fact leaves the reader to choose a pronunciation or not to pronounce it all (since four consonants are not pronounceable without the reader’s express and personal addition of some vowel sounds, at least mentally). Finally, be it known that Bibliotheca prints the words of Christ in black, just like all the other words … as should all Bibles.

P.S., I had originally planned to include some pictures of my Bibliotheca books for this review. But good book pictures are hard to take and probably wouldn’t turn out well. And besides, professional pictures have already been taken. Have a look-see here: http://www.bibliotheca.co/#about

A (Now) Open Letter to Reasons To Believe

Open letters are usually letters of critique. The letter I am making public below, however, is a letter of thanks to the creation science ministry called Reasons to Believe, founded by Christian astronomer Hugh Ross. I wrote the letter in April 2015 some time after reading Ross’s book, A Matter of Days. I am publishing it here because I desired at some point to write about why thinking about the physical age of the world is important for Christians, and realized that this letter already contained a good introduction to my thoughts.

Dear Reasons to Believe:

My purpose is simply to thank Dr. Hugh Ross and your ministry for the work you do, and to tell you about the impact Dr. Ross’s book A Matter of Days has had on my perception of the physical world.

I am 32 years old, and, by God’s grace, have always been a Christian. But growing up, it was fairly assumed that being a Christian and taking the Bible seriously meant holding to a young earth creationist model of origins, which I did. Like many young people, I found science very interesting. That interest in scientific topics never faded (though I did not study science in college). In high school I read Henry Morris’s Scientific Creationism, which is a heady tome for someone that age. Though much of it was beyond me, I basically understood the arguments from biochemistry against abiogenesis, which were extremely compelling. As time went on, I began to understand other things, like the rudiments of information theory; irreducible complexity in the cell, in organs and higher organisms, and even in ecosystems; and the case these discoveries made for intelligent design. If the creationists I was reading had done anything well, it was exposing the flaws in evolutionism.

But of course, there was also the issue of the age of the cosmos. Understand, I not only enjoyed reading creation science, I actually attended San Diego Christian College (formerly Christian Heritage College), cofounded by Dr. Henry Morris himself. Henry Morris, John Morris, Duane Gish, and Ken Ham were household names for us. I had from time to time visited the Institute for Creation Research museum. I was familiar with the arguments for a young earth and a global flood, which at the time seemed sufficient. There was no real argument for a young universe, though we all expected this to be forthcoming as science advanced. Until then we just assumed it was young and that explanations for its apparent age would emerge. For a while, I was quite excited about Russell Humphrey’s and John Hartnett’s white hole model.

It is only over the past year or so that I began to doubt the idea of a planet less than 10,000 years old. But after reading a useful little title by Keith Mathison called A Reformed Approach to Science and Scripture [currently free for Kindle], I began to realize in a clearer way what I would have affirmed verbally all along—namely, that natural revelation from God in the physical world around us is a source of true knowledge, when properly understood, and that it may be helpful on some occasions in clarifying the meaning of certain things revealed specially in the Bible.

At the same time, I was losing faith in “appearance of age” arguments. These seemed to suggest that even if many lines of carefully considered data all converged to indicate an age of the universe or the earth of billions of years, these lines of data either must be completely misunderstood or they may be authored by God, despite being practically illusory. Even many YEC scientists were rejecting the “light in transit” explanation of visible distant stars, because supernovas greater than 10,000 light years away would requires us to believe the exploded star never really existed and that the perceived explosion was simply a light show God had made. This obviously has unsettling philosophical ramifications about God’s way of communicating, and our belief that the world we live in is real, and not an illusion, as the Bible says (and contrary to some eastern and new age views), and that God has given us senses that accurately perceive this real world, as the Bible assumes. Appearance-of-age explanations for other phenomena, whether geological or astronomical, are likewise problematic.

I began to research interpretations of Genesis 1-2 from Gorman Gray, Meredith Kline, and Mark Futato. This lead me to consider for the first time that a young-earth interpretation may not be the only interpretation that respects the text or authorial intent.

Still, I did not yet know just how compelling the evidence for an old earth was, nor how thin arguments for a young earth were. Besides, in all my reading of science articles from YEC sources, I had heard of this “Hugh Ross” character many times, and knew he was up to no good! But, after opening up to the possibility of an old cosmos, I was interested, hungry even, for more information. I began perusing Reasons.org. Eventually, I wanted to find out what RTB had to say about all this in depth. Still being slightly suspicious, and on a budget, I didn’t want to pay full price for Dr. Ross’s opus, so I “donated” ten dollars to RTB and got the book as a “free gift.” Sorry!

I devoured the book. I sometimes comment that I read it in “a matter of days.” It helped me understand the large volume of evidence for an old earth and universe. This volume of evidence is a real problem for a YEC interpretation of the Bible. YEC proponents often (rightly) point out that facts don’t interpret themselves, and that there are facts and then there are interpretations of the facts. This is true. But likewise there is the text of Scripture, and there are interpretations of it. A true interpretation of the Bible will submit to the Bible’s literary forms, and will integrate the whole, and will not turn a text on its head—words do have understandable meaning, and interpretation has definite limits. So I am not saying the Bible can be “interpreted” to accommodate just anything. On the other hand, this must also be true of natural revelation, since God is its author. Interpreting facts of nature in such a constrained way so as to make them basically incomprehensible also does damage to the idea of God as a revealer of truth, or about the possibility of science at all. And the Bible encourages science (e.g., 1 Kings 4:33). The more we discover about the universe, the more material we have for which to praise a mighty and wise God. There is no need for me to repeat back to you all of your own reasons to accept an old age of the earth. Suffice it say I have been convinced that the earth is old.

I used to view all of secular science with a degree of suspicion. Granted, many of these sources begin with a presumption of atheism. Not that all the contributors are atheists. I simply mean that they will only allow for naturalistic causes of all things. But now I find reading from Nature, National Geographic, or the Smithsonian can be much more exciting, because there is no need to be constantly denying the old-cosmos timeline that is everywhere present. There will always be the need to read all sources with a discerning mind. But maybe these scientists do have much to teach, often unbeknownst to them perhaps, about the glories of the Creator. Maybe they have much to teach about the realities around us—things we can learn. (John Calvin thought so.)

After finishing A Matter of Days I read the Presbyterian Church in America report on the hexameron cited in Dr. Ross’s footnotes. I will also read the Westminster Seminary report. Being Reformed (Baptist) in my own understanding of Scripture, I have much respect for these sources and what they say about the acceptable ranges of interpretation for Genesis. Thank you for pointing them out.

But most importantly, thank you for pointing out the facts of God’s world. God’s people are to be a truth-seeking people. Truth is truth. Believing in a God of truth and revelation, and in an intelligible world created by a law-giver who gives us sensory perception and the laws of logic themselves, and who upholds the universe by fixed and uniform laws, we can pursue the clues of nature methodically to come to accurate conclusions. The irony is that it is the Christian alone who understands the basis in God for math, logic, uniformity of nature, and language. It is this pursuit of truth that concerns me most. It is this, I fear, that YEC proponents may be giving up in order to adhere to their tradition. Dr. Ross’s book was a real eye-opener for me, and I pray that RTB can continue to impact the world for Christ by pursuing truth in all spheres, both theological and scientific.




The Donald and the Fury

Donald Trump is not the problem with democracy; he is the revelation of the problem with democracy. He stands for all to witness as Exhibit A of the tendency of democratic governments to move in a direction toward a kind of populism that elevates nationalistic bromides, identity- and/or envy-politics, and alluring but impossible promises over reason, individual rights, and civil discourse. The rise of Bernie Sanders exhibits this phenomenon also, but Sanders, for all his fallacious and dangerous philosophy of governance, is at least not the boor that Trump is. And in the case of Trump, it seems to be his very boorishness that is winning him the most votes.

Trump has been despicable, insulting and belittling others, denying true accusations, and being boastful. He is an egomaniac (of Obama-like proportions), plainly lacking any discernable core values or driving sense of life other than his own aggrandizement. He is a bigot, an unprincipled opportunist, a buffoon, a serial liar, and generally just an all-around ass. These observations make it difficult for me to understand his success in the primary elections up to this point. I have tried to look at it from different angles, but from every one, Trump seems just as unqualified to be President as ever. Perhaps even more mystifying is that his bad behavior does not appear to affect his support or to influence his supporters. Trump supporters are a stiff-necked people, more determined to vote for him the more distasteful he becomes.

Trump’s success has hit me rather hard, both as an American citizen, and as a registered Republican. As a Republican, I am embarrassed—embarrassed that Trump can be winning so often in the primary election cycle, gaining support from so many other self-identifying Republicans. This tells me that something is wrong with the voter base of the party. Apparently, there is a large swathe of Republican primary voters who don’t identify with the party for the same reasons I do: for a belief in limited, constitutional government, a distrust of executive power, for balanced budgets, private property rights and individualism, etc. Rather, they just want someone to yank the power from the other side, not someone who will try to scale it back. And you see endorsements for Trump coming from every angle as well: from the shock-talking Ann Coulter, to the mild-mannered Ben Carson. Carson’s endorsement was especially surprising to me. (It turns out he has been promised a place in the Trump administration.) Neither of these people, apparently, were as conservative as I thought. For Ann Coulter in particular, endorsing Trump has served to show her true colors: did she really want smaller government or just nationalistic right-wing government (more in line with European conservatism than American classical liberal conservatism). I think Coulter long ago got so caught up in her extreme persona, she lost her roots, such as they were. To me, the Trump endorsement proves it. And Breitbart.com has also drunk the Trump Kool-Aid (not that I have followed Breitbart in years).

As an American citizen, I am beginning to lose my faith in the democratic process. The rise of Donald Trump evinces the idea that any clown can win the highest office in the land if he just riles up enough discontent. Both Sanders and Trump operate by arousing envy and dissatisfaction. For Sanders in particular, mob bloodlust against a pre-picked class of people is his go-to stump speech. For Trump, we see a similar M.O., though, being himself among the group of Sanders’ fall guys, he picks on migrant workers and Muslims instead. Hence his asinine promises to build a giant wall along the southern border (and make Mexico fund it) and to deport all 11 million illegal residents. Who believes this gas? Apparently a lot of people, which is my point. Meanwhile, cooler heads and sensible candidates like Rand Paul and John Kasich get left in the dust.

This upsurge in support of a rascal is disillusioning but probably not a permanent shift in American politics. It will come and go. However, rather than cause depression, it serves as a reminder that my ultimate allegiance is not to a democracy, but to a monarchy, in which an absolute Autocrat reigns with supreme and unquestionable authority over all. I speak of the Kingdom of God. And while God rules sovereignly, he also rules with goodness, kindness, wisdom, and grace. He rules over earthly rulers as the King of kings and Lord of lords. He puts heads of state in office and takes them out. It was the will of God that George W. Bush and Barack Obama be presidents of the United States, and the next President likewise will only have his magisterial authority on loan from God.

God does not promise only to put good people in power. But we can be sure that whoever comes into power is there, in the end, to serve some (often mysterious) purpose of God’s. If I lose sight of this, I have cause to be depressed, but in light of God’s sovereignty, I can press on with those things I do have control over, like trying to live faithfully day in and day out, regardless of the politics of moment.

For further reading on the Donald, try:





In fact, just go to thefederalist.com, search “Trump,” and start reading articles. The Federalist represents, for the most part, exactly the kind of insightful, principled, and engaging conservatism that appeals to me (as opposed to the hot-headed, cringe-inducing variety). It may be the best op-ed news site on the Web.

Rediscovering the NIV

Choosing a Bible translation to read is something any Christian who cannot read the biblical languages must do. And that means most of us. For some people groups, there may be only one translation of the Bible, so the “choice” is not so difficult. For English speaking Christians, the wealth of versions available may make the task confusing. Personally, I have been attracted to a few different translations over time, but as of recently, seem to be landing where I began—the New International Version—and this comes as somewhat of a surprise to myself. I have decided to write an overview of how I got here.

In middle school in the mid-nineties, I had a New International Version Bible my parents got for me. It was a paperback Bible that I took to church, with notes and anecdotes geared toward teenagers. Then, I didn’t think too much about one translation versus another. When I got into high school, I began to take my faith more seriously, and to study the Bible exegetically. Our pastor David Jeremiah preached from a New King James Version. I was looking for a more “serious” Bible version, which to me at the time, roughly meant more literal (or “formally equivalent”—formal equivalence means attempting to retain the form of the original language, including a more word-for-word approach to translation that often transfers over word order even if it sounds awkward in the target language). The NKJV is one of the more formally equivalent translations, and I began using one probably in around 1997 or 1998.

I attended a Christian college beginning in 2003. I was still using the NKJV, and had a compact version I took to chapel. This had been my daily Bible for years at this point. However, I began to learn more about manuscript transmission and traditions, and realized that the textual basis for the KJV and NKJV New Testament does not conform as much as to what was originally written as the textual basis used for most 20th-century English Bibles. I began to think about switching to something else. As a literalistic translation, the New American Standard Bible was one of the foremost competitors in my mind. But a new Bible translation was gaining popularity and endorsements from many of the Christian leaders I respected and being adopted in churches and by people I respected. This was the English Standard Version, whose translation committee was chaired by the venerable J. I. Packer. I began reading it and in time made the switch to the ESV.

While an essentially literal translation, the ESV sanded out some of the rough edges of the NASB, and certainly of the NKJV. I used the ESV as my primary Bible for ten years, from about 2005 to 2015. And I don’t regret it. The ESV is a quality translation of the Scriptures.

Still, the ESV can at times be stiff in its rendering. I am no linguist, but my college degree is in English literature, and I have a great appreciation for elegant prose and poetry. The ESV, while doing better in this area than the NASB or NKJV, can nonetheless sound stilted. (Mark Strauss, in a friendly manner, points out many amusing examples in an article on the ESV.) The more I wanted something that translated into natural English, the more I realized I might look to another version. Indeed, I was starting to be convinced that a literal rendering is not always the most precise way to translate, in terms of successfully carrying over the meaning of the original language—which is, lest we forget, the objective of translation.

And so, I began reading the less-known New English Translation. This was a less literal translation (more “dynamically equivalent” than formally equivalent), but I found it to be precise, and the translators’ notes that accompany it were illuminating. I poured over them for hours, and I will love having my NET full-notes Bible to refer to. I decided to give this translation a shot at becoming my primary Bible in place of the ESV. I read the NET as my main Bible for a full six months. As to the epistles of the New Testament and history sections of the Old Testament, I really enjoyed the NET. It used much more natural-sounding language than my trusty ESV, but did not sound informal. Where it tended to fall short was in poetic and prophetic passages, which make up a very large portion of Scripture. The Psalms sounded dryer—less beautiful somehow. Something about the cadence of more traditional translations was diminished. There were also a few very specific translation choices that disappointed me. Let me give a few examples.

  • The NET translates “man of God” as “prophet” often in the Old Testament. Since the Hebrew word for prophet is also used in the Old Testament, it seems there may be some reason for calling a prophet a “man of God” on various occasions.
  • The NET often translates “those who fear the Lord” as “the Lord’s faithful followers.” This example removes something, it seems to me, about the emphasis of the phrase. No doubt those who fear the Lord can be described as his faithful followers, but the fear of the Lord is a major theme that is not to be missed. If you thought that the translation might be misunderstood by an English-speaking reader today, you could always render it something like “those who revere the Lord,” which seems to me to clear up the meaning while retaining more of the original nuance.
  • The NET also frequently translates “my soul” as “me” in the Psalms. Meaning for meaning, this is acceptable, but the poetic expression of saying, for example, “My soul also is greatly troubled” (ESV) rather than simply “I am absolutely terrified” (NET) has a great force to it that I am sad to lose.
  • Finally, the NET translates “under the sun” in Ecclesiastes as “on earth,” an accurate but dry reduction of the original poetic line from the Teacher in that profound book.

It was these few complaints that made me turn to the New International Version to see how it handled the poetic and prophetic passages. I found that the familiar beauty of the traditional renderings was there in full force, but often with even greater clarity or elegance than in the more literal translations.

  • For example, 1 Kings 12:2 in the NET says “But God told Shemiah the prophet ….” In the NIV we have, “But this word of God came to Shemiah the man of God ….” Here the NIV follows the form of the Hebrew a lot closer than the NET. The NIV does this as long as the original form sounds natural in English and will be understood.
  • Psalm 6:3 in the NIV reads, “My soul is in deep anguish.”
  • The NIV also retains “those who fear the Lord” in the many places it shows up in the Old Testament. For example, Psalm 25:12 reads “Who, then, are those who fear the Lord? He will instruct them in the ways they should choose” in the NIV as opposed to “The Lord shows his faithful followers the way they should live” in the NET. This is because the NIV is in general more literal (and hence “traditional”) than the NET, but less literalistic than the ESV.
  • And in Ecclesiastes, as we would expect, the Teacher muses and laments over the meaninglessness of life “under the sun.”

So, I began reading about the NIV translation philosophy and history, and its initial and current reception by conservative evangelicals. I watched Douglas Moo’s talk on Bible translation given on the 50th anniversary of the commissioning of the original NIV translation committee. What I found was very positive and gave me new appreciation for the work of the NIV translation team both in the 1960s and today. I had not considered the NIV for a long time because I thought I had “out grown” it in a way. I had come to imagine the NIV was for beginner Christians. I think now that I was wrong about that. By translating into natural contemporary English, the NIV is often more accurate than word-for-word translations, for indeed a too-literal translation is not a complete translation from the old language into the target language. It’s like a 90% translation, where all it has translated is the lexicon, but not the form and style, from one language to another. On the other hand, playing too loose with the original words will reduce the perception of the wordplay and word pictures God may have wanted us to see. The NIV (and I realize this is the very cliché that almost every new Bible translation claims about itself), but the NIV really does balance accuracy, rich expression, and readability very, very well. Rediscovering the NIV has been like running into an old friend you had almost forgotten about, and finding you could rekindle the friendship.

Some Quick Thoughts on the Age of the Earth

It occurs to me that if the earth were young, its age would be hotly debated among secular scientists, as they were torn between the weight of the geological evidence and the timespans necessary to permit biological evolution, which they would need to hold to as a foundation of their naturalistic assumptions. As it is, science at large has reached total unanimity regarding the age of the earth, and the debate rages only within the church (including among Christian scientists) whose members are torn between the weight of the geological evidence and the timespan restraints imagined by some to be required by the Bible. The very fact that the debate about the age of the earth is raging in the church and not the secular scientific world is a strong indication that the earth is old. Indeed, as old as scientists say it is.
This is not because scientists are smart and Christians are dumb. Nor is it suggesting that in other questions scientists do not argue among themselves. Rather, this is an observation about which group of people—the scientific community or the Bible-believing church—is finding within their ranks apparent conflict between observations of nature and another perceived restraint on the limits of their belief. If the earth were young, it would show itself to be so. But secular science could not easily agree with such a conclusion, since it would preclude evolution. Thus they would be doing the bickering, while Christians happily and harmoniously acknowledged the youth of the planet. On the other hand, if the earth were old, it would show itself to be so, and some Christians would find this difficult to allow, do to a particular interpretation of the first eleven chapters of Genesis; others would permit the record of nature to inform their Bible interpretation and argue that the earth is a few billion years old, in accordance with the scientific findings and not at odds with Scriptural teaching. Thus the church would be those at discord, while the secular world would go on with the understanding of a billions-of-years-old earth, not thinking twice about it.
 Now, all this is based on the assumption that the age of the earth will be evident in the examination of the earth itself, if done carefully and corroborated over a length of time. If one assumes the biblical notions that truth is absolute, that it is that which corresponds to reality (i.e., truth=facts), that the world is real and not an illusion, that real history preceded the present, and laws of physics are constant, then the age of the earth ought to be discernable via the scientific method.
 Interestingly enough, the Bible itself refers to the mountains several times as being “ancient,” “age-old,” or “primeval.” One of these instances is in a blessing given to the tribes of Israel by Moses near the end of his lifetime in Deuteronomy 33:15. This would have been in the neighborhood of 1405 B.C. Now, according to a strict young-earth timeline, adhering closely to the biblical timeline as calculated by Bishop James Ussher in his Annals of the World, Moses would have said this about 2600 years after the creation of the world. This would be pushing the lower limits of “ancient” or “age-old” in my opinion, especially given the fact that pre-Flood humans could live naturally over 900 years. But it gets more difficult. Young-earth creationists believe that the topography of the present-day earth was born out of the cataclysmic geological upheaval that occurred at the time of the Noahic Flood. This means, of course, that the age-old hills were not created during creation week, but in the aftermath of the Flood. This means that the hills were in fact no older than 943 years—less actually, since this is based on when the flood began, and does not take into consideration how long it took for the continental land masses to move and reshape the terrestrial landscape. Moses at this time was 120 years old. These ancient hills, then, were not eight times older than he was. Now, I might refer to Independence Hall in Philadelphia as old, but I would hardly refer to it as ancient. I get the distinct impression that Moses, the author of Genesis, believes these hills to be much older than 1000 years.

Pinning! What’s so Special About Windows Phone

Smartphones … It all began with the BlackBerry phone in 2003. Or perhaps with PDA devices earlier. But it with was the introduction of the iPhone in 2007 (was it really only seven years ago?) that the smartphone began to evolve into what it has become today—mini computer powerhouses with hi-res screens and an explosion of features and capabilities.

Today, BlackBerry is all but extinct, and there are three major players on the smartphone scene: Android, iPhone, and Windows Phone, with the latter being a distant third in terms of popularity. iOS and Android systems have a very similar look and feel. Windows Phone, on the other hand, is something different. All these systems have many, many capabilities in common, so what do I think makes Windows Phone special?

Live Tiles and the Start Screen

three screens

Here are screen shots of the the iPhone 5 home screen, the Android Samsung Galaxy 4S home screen, and a screen shot of my very own Windows Phone’s start screen. The iPhone and the Android basically present you with static icons with which to launch you into various apps. It works fine, but the screen itself is rather uninteresting. Windows Phone, uses tiles instead of icons. These tiles are “live” with activity, receiving updated information and presenting that information before you ever have to open the app. The calender, weather, and to-do list apps are great examples of the usefulness of this function. It makes the start screen itself useful, in addition to being a launching point to get to the other useful stuff. It’s dynamic and beautiful. And in fact, the screen shot does not wholly communicate what sets the Start screen apart from the other two home screens because the Start screen is busy with motion–tiles changing, animating, or flipping around with relevant bits of data for you to see at a glance.

The second thing that’s special about Windows Phone is the ability to “pin” almost anything to the start screen. Obviously, you can “pin” or position app tiles on the start screen. But different apps will allow you to pin other things so you can get at them quickly and directly. It’s hard to describe this without showing it, but for example, OneDrive lets me pin a particular folder to my start screen. Spotify lets me pin a favorite playlist to the start screen. Maps lets me pin a particular destination, which is really nice. Facebook lets me pin a Facebook group. Several sports apps let me pin favorite teams to the start screen. My timer app lets me pin a particular preset timer. The weather app, cities. My YouTube app, videos. I could go and on. Basically, any app can allow you to pin elements within the app directly to start screen so you don’t have to dig for them in the app any more. You can go straight to them. It’s really cool.

Windows Phone still only represents a small percentage of all smartphone usage, and it has done better outside the U.S. than in its own home country. But that’s too bad, because Microsoft has built something unique here, with a fantastic user interface that is quick and dynamic and easy to navigate.

Naturalis Historia

Exploring the Intersection of Science and Faith in the Spirit of John Ray

Today's New Reason to Believe

Integrating Science and Faith


Faith Seeking Understanding

Tim Challies

Informing the Reforming

Christian Knight

For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. (Eph 6:12 ESV)

Board Game Pair-A-dice

Where the fun just keeps rollin'

Pure Soliloquy

"The discerning heart seeks knowledge" (Proverbs 15:14).

Operation Living Water

A biblical community with a voice

danieloquence. *

* it's like eloquence, only messier.

Tu Media Naranja

Our life on an urban frontier.

%d bloggers like this: