Pesharim

My Dad is leading a Bible study at our house, and each member is supposed to tell someone during the week that he or she is a Christian. Hence this post.

Consider yourself so informed.

…. yet somehow I think I was supposed to put just a bit more effort into that…

In other news: yes, I know I haven’t posted in forever…. but, I won’t be able to post again during the next week. You see, I’m off to camp tomorrow. So after not posting for more than a week, I come on to tell you that I’m not going to be posting for more than a week…. how lame is that?

Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell replies to my previous post “Unicorns in the Bible”. Her reply is as follows:

Thank you for reading the articles on our web site.

“Wild ox,” “rhinoceros,” and “unicorn” have all been used over the years by reputable, intelligent translators. The King James translators and Martin Luther felt the best translation for the Hebrew word which we transliterate as re’em was “unicorn.” I am well aware that the modern translators have chosen to translate the word as “wild ox,” but there is no reason to assume that earlier translators were encumbered by a belief in mystical creatures. There is also no reason to impose modern fairy-tale identifications on the Bible’s unicorn. Nor should the inclusion of the word unicorn cause readers of the KJV to lose confidence in the Bible. The article simply states that the Bible, whichever version you choose to use, based on context, is referring to a real creature which has certain characteristics and possesses either one or two horns.

There was no need to discuss the modern versions, since the “offending word” (unicorn) doesn’t appear in them. But in view of the proportion of the English-speaking world that has used and still uses the KJV, this article is offered to help those readers to provide a reasonable answer to those who would mock God’s Word for containing this word.

The previous article on our web site did take a position favoring the two-horned animal. With further research, I conclude that the Bible cannot be dogmatically read to specify the number of horns. But as the previous article stated, the Bible does clearly indicate this creature, whatever it was, was real. The two articles express two different opinions on a subpoint, but the point of both articles is the same: Context indicates that the Bible is not referring to fantasy animals. And the goal of both articles is the same: to encourage trust in the entire Bible and therefore in its Author, the Savior Jesus Christ.

Blessings,

Elizabeth Mitchell, M.D.

Link. I shall be surprised at nothing after this. I tell you now, absolutely nothing. Idle reader, I speak of no less than this: Answers in Genesis has on their website a kindly little article about unicorns. Indeed, unicorns. As they have it, the Bible asserts the actual existence of an animal as per the unicorn, an equine with a single, large horn. The evidence for this derives from the use of the word re’em (found nine times in the OT, in Numbers 23:22; 24:8; Deuteronomy 33:17; Job 39:9,10; Psalms 22:21; 29:6; 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7) translated as “unicorn” in the King James (KJV/AV) and Vulgate (LXX). However, the word literally means “Raise up” implying a horn or horns of some kind. Why then should one even bother with the suggestion of a unicorn? ….The logic escapes me.

“The absence of a unicorn in the modern world should not cause us to doubt its past existence. (Think of the dodo bird. It does not exist today, but we do not doubt that it existed in the past).”

Yes, but we have had stuffed remains of do-do birds as recent as 1755, while we have nothing but fairy tales to support the unicorn. And the Bible, my atheist friend, is not among those fairy tales. Aside from the formidable Invisible Pink Unicorn”, I’ve never heard the like to this.

“However, the linguistics of the text cannot conclusively prove how many horns the biblical unicorn had.”

A difficult question this, how many horns does a unicorn have? Wait, what? A unicorn with anything but a single horn would undoubtedly cease to be a unicorn. Surely we do not need a “semi-technical” article to prove that oxen exist. This is either sophistry or Poe; honestly, I know not which. And even then, saying “the linguistics of the text cannot conclusively prove how many horns the biblical unicorn had” accounts for very little when one actually considers the Bible passage in question, or, perhaps, did they forget to read that? Yet, Numbers (more correctly translated) renders as “God who brought them out of Egypt is like the lofty horns of the re’em [i.e. unicorn] to him.” Re’em is singular in Hebrew, so the plural horns can be taken but one way: that the animal was no unicorn at all, but conversely, a “wild ox” as it is translated in more modern versions.

I should note that this isn’t their first article on unicorns (see here). Previously (as in 1994), Carl Wieland had written for AiG saying that “The bible does not refer to fantasy animals” and that “the translation of the Hebrew re’em as ‘unicorn’ is incorrect.”. Isn’t that nice…. and also rather contradictory. In conclusion, this article is merely an anomaly among AiG’s material, of course, but one still cannot help but wonder at their editors for this.

…sort of.  But putting the last couple weeks of post-less-ness aside, here is a short video from the author of the famous “Periodic Table Song”:

…and there was much, uh…rejoicing? Actually, I was a bit surprised at this unexpected development between two of the blogs I read most. Ray somehow doesn’t seem the Pharyngula type. It struck me as I was reading Ray’s blog that I’d read these same comments just yesterday. Wait, Pharyngula? Ahhh, there’s the rub! (See Ray’s post here, and PZ’s post here)

check it out here.  Nifty little picture too…. maybe I can get permission to use it as my avatar.

So naturally I’m always looking for ways to increase traffic, and one way to do that is to join a webring. Webrings are groups of related websites that link to each other in a loop. In looking for an appropriate webring, I’ve found southern baptist webrings, atheist webrings, Buddhist webrings, even wiccan webrings, but, somewhat equivocally, I just can’t find an agreeable Christian webring. Aghhh….

If you know of a Christian webring please suggest it in the comments, thanks!

This question has been posed on a certain site for quite a while, and, in my opinion, has received no satisfactory answer.  Naturally, I don’t like questions to remain unanswered, so even though his question was not directed to me, permit me the liberty to answer it.

What does The Bible have to say about the countless people who, through zero fault of their own, never hear the word of God? Do they go to Heaven or Hell?” - Andrew Douglas

First of all, the question makes several presumptions, (1. that God’s judgment is conditional, i.e. that His judgment would differ in tolerance given whether or not we were exposed to the gospel.  (2. That there are people who are ignorant of God.  Neither of these holds any place in scripture, but, first, let me expound on these assumptions:  There are, quite obviously, those who have never heard the word of God as we have it now, –in the Bible.  Yet we know that “There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard,”  (Psalms 19 verse something) So, one can safely conclude that the message of salvation is not endemic to the Bible.  In fact, as the Bible is a relatively recent work, and as it was written over a rather large expanse of time, we can look into the Bible itself to see how those who had never heard the word of God were treated, as a type of those today who are necessarily similar.  Job lived before the Mosaic covenant was given, yet he had a very personal relationship with God as well as highly developed theology.  “After my skin is destroyed this I know, that in my flesh I shall see God… how my own heart yearns within me.” Likewise, the patriarchs (Abraham, Issac and Jacob), Balaam, Melchizedek, Noah, Enoch, and many other individuals, had a knowledge and/or relationship with God long before the Bible, and for the most part without any special revelation.  Thus, despite the assumption that there are those who have not heard the word of God, previous history in the Bible testifies to the opposite.  So taking the past as an example, one is able to see how God reveals himself to people without a specific knowledge of his word.

There is an idea in modern culture that given enough knowledge or intellect one could discern the presence of God, if such a  presence were there to be discerned.  We are given to the idea that the evolution of science will ultimately lead us towards whatever truth has yet escaped us.  And perhaps that is right, but even without that knowledge, God has left us without excuse.  “In the past, he let all nations go their own way. Yet he has not left himself without testimony” says Paul to the people of Lystra in Acts 14:16-17.  God has left testimony of himself both on our hearts and on our minds.  Indeed, when Gentiles who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness… (Romans 2.14) and in Psalms 19 “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.” It seems to me that God could work his will through amoebas if he so desired, and in His perspective one must assume that we are little more than amoebas anyways.

So taking the Old Testament, pre-revelation characters as an example, we can define exactly how God would reveal himself in such a case.  Hebrews chapter 11 is a discourse on faith.  It speaks of how the OT prophets and patriarchs were justified by faith in God, apart from works and  –because they lived before the incarnation of the Christ– apart from faith in Jesus, at least explicitly.  Even so, saw “[these promises] afar off were assured of them.” In other words, although they didn’t believe in Jesus (as they had knowledge of Him, per se) they believed that God would provide some way of atonement for their sin.  As Genesis 15:6 says “Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness”

Thus, those who have no knowledge of the revelation of Christ are treated just as those who lived before His incarnation, before God allowed any specific knowledge of Him to exist on the earth.  There is no excuse for not having faith in God, and it certainly isn’t merited by never having heard the word of God.  Unfortunately, as to the question, “Do they go to Heaven or Hell?” There is no over-arching answer.  As with anyone else, those who place their faith in God receive the promise of an eternal life with Him. “But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.” Those who ignore God’s promise will suffer eternity in hell.

Note: In the entire passage until now, I’ve been dealing with belief as a thought processes, but it isn’t.  Belief need not occur as a cognitive action but as a holistic, or sub-conscious, knowledge.  God knows the thoughts and intents of the heart better than man, so in the end it is up to Him and we must place our faith in that.

This, my friends, is reason to rejoice! And not only have we 1,000 views but much rather, 1,005!!!!

Seriously though, where are you all coming from?

I got around to updating the “RULES” today. Check ‘em out.