Gertoux on the Name

Flavius Josephus, who understood the priesthood of this time very well, made it clear that at the time the Romans attacked the Temple the Jews called upon the fear-inspiring name of God (The Jewish War V:438). He wrote he had no right to reveal this name to his reader (Jewish Antiquities II:275), however he did give information of primary importance on the very pronunciation he wanted to conceal. However, in his work The Jewish War V:235 he stated: "The high priest had his head dressed with a tiara of fine linen embroidered with a purple border, and surrounded by another crown in gold which had in relief the sacred letters; these ones are four vowels" This description is excellent; moreover, it completes the one found in Exodus 28:36-39.

However, as we know, there are no vowels in Hebrew but only consonants. Regrettably, instead of explaining this apparent abnormality, certain commentators (influenced by the form Yahweh) mislead the readers of Josephus by indicating in a note that this reading was IAUE. Now, it is obvious that the 'sacred letters' indicated the Tetragram written in paleo-Hebrew, not Greek. Furthermore, in Hebrew these consonants Y, W, H, do serve as vowels; they are in fact called 'mothers of reading' (matres lectionis). The writings of Qumrân show that in the first century Y used as vowel served only to indicate the sounds I and É, W served only for the sounds Ô and U, and a final H served for the sound A. These equivalences may be verified in thousands of words. Additionally, the H was used as a vowel only at the end of words, never within them. So, to read the name YHWH as four vowels would be IHUA that is IEUA, because between two vowels the H is heard as a slight E. Eusebius quoted a writer of great antiquity (before 1200 BCE?) called Sanchuniathon who spoke about the Jews in chapter four of his work entitled Phoenician History. Philo of Byblos translated

this work into Greek, at the beginning of our era, and Porphyry was familiar with it. Sanchuniathon maintained that he got his information from Ieroubal the priest of IÉÜÔ, that is Jerubbaal found in Judges 7:1. According to Judges 7:1, Jerubbaal was the name of Judge Gideon who was a priest of Jehovah (Jg 6:26; 8:27), probably written IÉÜÔA in Greek.Irenaeus of Lyons believed that the word IAÔ in Greek, [Iah] in Latin) meant 'Lord' in primitive Hebrew (Against Heresies II:24:2) and he esteemed that the use of this Hebrew word IAÔ to denote the Name of the unknown Father, was intended to impress gullible minds in worship of mysteries (Against Heresies I:21:3). Furthermore, the Greek concept of an anonymous god, mainly supported by Plato, being mixed in with the Hebrew concept of the God with a personal name engendered absolutely contradictory assertions. 

So, Clement of Alexandria wrote in his book (Stromateon V:34:5) that the Tetragram was pronounced Iaoue while writing, and then later, that God was without form and nameless (StromateonV:81:6). In the same way, Philo a Jewish philosopher of the first century had good biblical knowledge and knew that the Tetragram was the divine name pronounced inside the temple, since he related: "there was a gold plaque shaped in a ring and bearing four engraved characters of a name which had the right to hear and to pronounce in the holy place those ones whose ears and tongue have been purified by wisdom, and nobody else and absolutely nowhere else" (De Vita Mosis II:114-132). However in the same work, paradoxically, he explains, commenting on Exodus 3:14 from the LXX translation that God has no name of his own! (De Vita Mosis I:75).

The Christian translators (of heathen origin) not understanding Hebrew exchanged the Tetragram with Lord; Marcion in 140 C.E. even modified the expression "Let your Name be sanctified" into "Let your spirit be sanctified". On the other hand, some Christians (of Jewish origin) such as Symmachus kept the Tetragram

written in Hebrew inside the Greek text (in 165). Eusebius clarified that Symmachus was an Ebionite, that is a Judeo-Christian, and that he had drafted a comment on Matthew's book (Ecclesiastical History VI:17). However, the Judeo-Christians were completely rejected after 135 of our era by the "Christians" as Jewish heretics. The whole of translations being made according to the Septuagint, many readers ignored the problem of the vocalization of the Name. However Jerome, who realized the first Latin translation directly from the Hebrew text, noted in his commentary on Psalm 8:2: "The name of the Lord in Hebrew has four letters, Yod He Waw He, which is the proper name of God which some people through ignorance, write (instead of h w h y) in Greek and which can be pronounced Yaho". Augustine of Hippo wrote around 400 that "Varro was rightly writing that the Jews worship the god Jupiter"! (De consensu evangelistarum I:22), his remark proves that he probably confused the name of Jupiter (Ioue) with the Hebrew name of God Iaô, or perhaps Ioua

Erudition at its best!  

Astronomers find new planet that could support life?

See here: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2010-09-30-planet30_ST_N.htm

Christmas

“The establishment of December 25 evolved not from biblical precedent,” says The Christmas Encyclopedia, “but from pagan Roman festivals held at year’s end,” about the time of the winter solstice in the Northern Hemisphere. Those festivals included the Saturnalia, in honor of Saturn, god of agriculture, “and the combined festivals of two sun gods, the Roman Sol and the Persian Mithra,” says the same encyclopedia.- Awake!, December, 2010, p. 5

 To add a little more information, I recall reading in Blomberg's historical reliability of the Gospels that Christians began celebrating Christmas as a response to the Romans celebrating or praising Mithra. It was basically politically motivated. I can't find the exact quote right now. I think I'm going to have to start writing down relevant quotes as I'm reading a book or something for future reference!

Fiery Johnny

Sort of a paraphrase: 'If you throw out Matthew through Revelation, you also have to throw out Aristotle, Homer, Plato and have to throw out the Classics." 

How Nero Saved Rome

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/how-nero-saved-rome-4024/Overview#tab-Videos/08773_00

Has anybody else seen the program on the National Geographic channel?

Most Widely Accepted Facts About Jesus

Almost all of the radical/skeptical/liberal New Testament scholars who rejected the Bible as inspired or even as reliable, still are compelled to agree with the following facts about Jesus of Nazareth:


1. Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist.
2. Jesus was a Galilean who preached and healed.
3. Jesus called disciples and spoke of there being twelve.
4. Jesus confined his activity to Israel.
5. Jesus engaged in controversy about the temple.
6. Jesus was crucified [Executed] outside Jerusalem by the Roman authorities.
7. After his death Jesus' followers continued as an identifiable movement.
8. At least some Jews persecuted at least parts of the new movement (Gal. 1.13,22; Phil.3.6), and it appears that this persecution endured at least to a time near the end of Paul's career (II Cor. 11.24; Gal 5.11; 6.12; cf. Matt. 23:34; 10:17)


The above 8 facts are accepted by virtually all New Testament scholars regardless if they are agnostic, atheist, or believing. 

Bible-Translation & Yahoo Group

Hello!

At http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bible-Translation/messages/1412?xm=1&o=1&m=p&tidx=1 there is a translation study group that is currently studying Randall Price's Search for the Original Bible. After this book is done, the group starts another book and so on. If anyone is interested sign up for the group and participate. As regards to who is in the group, majority are Jehovah's Witnesses, but not all. So it's a diverse group.

Some Witness Blogs

http://donaldbaty.blogspot.com/
http://paradiseblog.net/
http://sianrose.wordpress.com/
http://saffrondelights.info/
http://stayawake-standfirm.blogspot.com/
http://www.blogger.com/profile/03076761804394834902
http://truthhistory.blogspot.com/
http://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/
http://jenniferlous.blogspot.com/
http://tearsofoberon.blogspot.com/
http://www.blogger.com/profile/00576135299193837482
http://pastorrussell.blogspot.com/
http://kat-discoveringthe.blogspot.com/
http://dismythed.blogspot.com/
http://stuffofinteresttojws.blogspot.com/

I'm sure there are many others, but check them out. Or don't. But you should. But you don't have to, but you might as well since you're reading this entry anyway.

How Prophecy Succeeds: The Jehovah’s Witnesses and Prophetic Expectations

George D. Chryssides of Birmingham University, has written a helpful, scholarly journal arguing against the much of the rhetoric spewed by Ex-Witness and 'Christian' critics.

"I aim to show that, although there have been some unrealized expectations, changes in Watch Tower chronology are attributable more to changed chronological schemes, rather than to failed predictions." (p. 29 of pdf)


"Contrary to popular belief, the Watch Tower Society has not repeatedly set dates for the world’s end, found its expectations disappointed, rescheduled the eschatological timetable, and repeated this sequence each time expectations have been frustrated." (p. 29 of pdf)

Read more here: http://www.equinoxjournals.com/IJSNR/article/viewFile/8147/pdf

John 20 & 21

Many have understood John 20:30 and 31 to be a conclusion, that is, the end of the Gospel of John. And to their credit, it sure does sound like it. Given the view that it could be a "conclusion", what does that say about John 21? Well, many have concluded, among other things, that John 21 is a later addition to John's Gospel, namely, by "John 2". This "John 2" is seen as the second author of John's Gospel.

Moreover, some scholars feel that John 21: 24 gives evidence for such a conclusion.


(John 21:24) . . .This is the disciple [presumably, John] that bears witness about these things and that wrote these things, and we know that the witness he gives is true.

Some scholars reason, if only 1 other wrote John, why does verse 24 say "we" know that the witness he gives is true? Well, here, they find evidence that someone else, that is, other than John, probably wrote John 21. 

More conservative scholars suggest that John 21 as an appendage by John. By that they mean that perhaps John forgot to include this information so he added it at the end, sort of like a Post Script [P. S.] at the end of a letter.

Last Seminary

http://www.lastseminary.com/

Website has many scholarly articles dealing with Science, Religion, and New Testament Studies all free of charge. Under "books" it also gives great book recommendations dealing with particular topics.

The End of God?: A Horizon Guide to Science and Religion (4 Parts)

Book Review

I've reviewed Robert Bowman's and Kenneth Boa's book at my WordPress Blog: http://ivanmonroy.wordpress.com/2010/09/23/91/

Red Sea Story picking up Steam

Earlier this week, I had posted some internet news links where the whole Moses/Red Sea miracle was talked about, now it's taking a more 'mainstream' route, if you will.

Proposition 8, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Joel

"It's a curious fact ...let us acknowledge it...that the most well-known apologist today for Jehovah's Witnesses is an openly gay man."

A provocative but effective one-liner isn't it? Read more here: http://carriertom.typepad.com/sheep_and_goats/2010/09/proposition-8-mormons-jehovahs-witnesses-and-joel.html

Jesus: Man, Messiah, or More?

I don't know how or if I can even embed the video (I saw no option to do so), but check out the link:

http://www.dod.org/products/DOD2121.aspx

It's an interesting documentary featuring Darrell Bock and Craig Evans (among others). It is divided up in 8 parts

Marriage in the First Century World

"Jewish men regularly married by eighteen, Romans by twenty-five, but Greeks often not until thirty. Girls of all three cultures, however, were usually wed soon after puberty, in their early to mid-teens. There is no reason to doubt, for example, that Mary was just such a teenage bride." Craig L. Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels: 2nd Edition (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2009) p. 68

To many in Western society (e.g. Americans, Brits, etc.) this may sound odd, even troubling, but we must not forget that ancient culture, not just Jewish culture, was often radically different than ours. It may be difficult to picture Mary as perhaps being only 13 years old or so when she had Jesus, but it shouldn't considering the context and time period. Little details like these often help us put things in perspective.

Armageddon Film

I recently saw a film by the name of Waiting For Armageddon, which I found strange, odd, but eye-opening at the same time. There's so much misunderstanding and conflicting views about Armageddon and events or future events related to it, in particular the "Rapture." Much of this misunderstanding stems from the belief that the nation of Israel still has a purpose in God's will. However, Jesus said in Matthew 21:43 "Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you [that is, Israel] and given to a people who will produce its fruit [that is, spiritual Israel]."

Capernaum

Peter's House (possibly?)

Synagogue

Ariel View

Peter's house was supposedly a 12 room house with 3 courts. (See V. C. Corbo, "Capernaum" in ABD, vol 1, 866-69. ABD= Anchor Bible Dictionary)

I have the quote if no one has the ABD:

C. The House of Simon Peter

The house of Simon Peter at Capernaum is mentioned many times in the Gospels, so much so that in referring to his house, the Evangelists do so with or without the article (Matt 17:25; Mark 2:1; 3:20; 9:33); alternatively they refer to it with the name of Peter (Matt 8:14) or of Simon and Andrew (Mark 1:29).

The house of Simon Peter was found in 1968 in the first campaign of the excavations. It is situated in the SE corner of a vast insula which extends from the shore of the lake to the Hellenistic decumanus. Its N side lies under the balcony of the synagogue; its E side faces an open area which adjoins the cardo maximus and to which reference is made in Mark 1:33 and 2:2. The archaeological finds show that this house had already been built in the Hellenistic period, and that therefore, Simon Peter must have acquired it when he settled with his clan at Capernaum. The entry to the vast dwelling was from the open space to the E. See Fig. CAP.01. The plan of the house had three courts, around which were arranged the numerous living rooms. Among these rooms were two situated on the S side of the N court, which was the court into which one entered from the street. These two rooms were transformed in the apostolic period into a “house church”; here the excavators found part of the paving of the floor, which was surfaced with lime plaster—the same type of paving, in fact, which was found some years later in the triclinia of the palace of Herod at Macheron. The walls of the house–church were likewise covered with plaster and had painted decorations consisting of Judeo–Christian emblems. Christian pilgrims of the first centuries scratched on these plastered walls sacred and devotional graffiti in Greek, Latin, Syriac, and Aramaic (cf. Testa 1972).

The house of Simon Peter underwent a radical restructuring in the 4th century c.e. when, at the initiative of Count Joseph of Tiberias, a friend of Constantine the Great, the house–church was restructured on the interior with the addition of an arch supporting a new roof. The floor was also resurfaced; a new sacristy was added on the N side, while on the E flank a portico was built. The original entrance of the house, which had opened onto the cardo maximus, was closed, while there were opened two new entrances in the sacred wall—one on the S toward the shore of the lake and one on the N on the new decumanus which had been cut through the insula. This 4th century arrangement was seen by the pilgrim Egeria.

The Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York : Doubleday, 1996, p. 867

Sleeping on the Roof

"In Palestine roofs were flat, and people socialized and slept on them to cool off a little during hot weather." - Craig Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels: 2nd Edition (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2009) p. 63

I wonder how many people died in the ancient world from rolling off their roofs while they were sleeping?

Was Jesus Really a Carpenter?

The Greek word translated "carpenter" is tektwn. As far as I researched, this word only appears in two texts, namely, Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55.

But what does tektwn mean? It "refers to “one who makes, produces” (Latin faber), esp. when referring to woodworking"- Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament

Other Lexicons say: builder, craftsman;

So what should be conclude?

That tekwn is essentially a construction worker, a woodworker, someone specializing in masonry, etc., but not limited to carpentry, though it could mean carpentry. In other words, we shouldn't be overly dogmatic about whether he was actually a carpenter or a construction worker.

Maybe the Bible was Right?

Wind could have split Rea Sea:

http://www.smh.com.au/world/science/wind-could-have-split-red-sea-scientist-says-20100922-15llg.html

http://news.discovery.com/history/moses-red-sea-parting.html

Exert: "The simulations match fairly closely with the account in Exodus," Mr Drews said.

"The parting of the waters can be understood through fluid dynamics. The wind moves the water in a way that's in accordance with physical laws, creating a safe passage with water on two sides and then abruptly allowing the water to rush back in."

I don't know, but maybe critics should start taking the Bible more seriously!?

Benefit of Book Reviews

Earlier this month when I reviewed Craig Blomberg's Historical Reliability of the Gospels and James Dunn's Did the First Century Christians Worship Jesus?, it seems a few people had their eyes on my blog.

Evidently, one of the publishers like my review enough to send me a couple of books for reviewing on my WordPress Blog. I'm extremely grateful to InterVarsity Press for their generosity, and I'll try to review the books as soon as possible, but it'll be hard considering they're over 800 pages each!

I didn't start my WordPress Blog to start receiving books from publishers, but I guess when you get enough views and interest, they take interest in you!

Bauckham on Historicity of Gospels

Richard Bauckham from Sydneyanglicans.net on Vimeo.

γινώσκω (Ginosko) and John 17:3

1. to arrive at a knowledge of someone or something, know, know about, make acquaintance of something

2. to acquire information through some means, learn (of), ascertain, find out

3. to grasp the significance or meaning of something understand, comprehend

something

4. to have come to the knowledge of, have come to know, know

Given the above definitions, how can anyone claim that John 17:3 is a 'mistranslation' in the New World Translation?

Based on the limited Greek that I know and that I've studied, I would suggest a translation along the lines of:

"Now this is eternal life that they learn of you the only true God and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

I would chose "learn" for several reasons. (1) Because it accurately reflects the notion of 'acquiring something', namely, knowledge and/or understanding. (2) When you "learn" something it demonstrates that you've "grasped the significance" of that particular something. (3) The lexical meaning of Ginosko clearly involves more than just a relationship with God and Jesus and hence "know" in this passage doesn't do Ginosko justice. "Know" in other passages may be suffice, but I don't believe that is the case in this text. (4) In modern day 2010, I believe "learn" does encompass the first century usage of Ginosko. Because of these and more reasons I would support a translation of "learn" in John 17:3.

Taken from the most authoritative Lexicon of the Greek New Testament- A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000

OSAS?

O[nce] S[aved] A[lways] S[aved]? Is Eternal Security/Salvation Scriptural?

According to the Bible, Christians can:

• drift away (Heb. 2:1) NIV
• stray (Mt. 18:12,13) NWT
• wander away from the faith (1 Tim. 6:10,21)
• deviate from the truth and overturn the faith of some (2 Tim. 2:18) HCSB
• lose your saltiness (Lk. 14:34,35) NRSV
• stumble (Mk. 14:27,29) NKJV
• turn away from grace (Gal. 5:4) Bible in Basic English
• believe for a time, and in time of trial fall away. (Lk. 8:13) Darby
• stumble and fall (Mt. 24:10) Wesley NT
• stray from these things, turn aside to fruitless discussion (1 Tim. 1:5,6) NASB
• turn back to their old ways of living and not go along with Jesus after that (Jn. 6:66) New Life
• have your faith shipwrecked (1 Tim. 1:19) Recovery Version
• leave the right path and wander off to follow the path of Balaam (2 Pet. 2:15) NJB
• be like a branch that is thrown away and dries up (Jn. 15:6) Beck
• fall over stumbling blocks (Jn. 16:1) C.B. Williams
• turn away, become Satan's follower (1 Tim. 5:15) Heinz Casirrer New Covenant
• desert from the faith (1 Tim. 4:1) Barclay
• turn their hearing away from the truth and turned aside to myths (2 Tim. 4:4) Concordant
• develop an evil unbelieving heart that pulls away from the living God (Heb. 3:12) International English Bible
• fall away from the faith so that it won't be possible to bring you back (Heb. 6:6) NIrV
• turn away from him who warneth us from heaven (Heb. 12:25) Worrell NT
• become lukewarm and get spit out of the mouth of Christ (Rev. 3:15,16) 21st Century NT
• to be hurt by the second death (Rev. 2:10,11) Byington
• have God take away your rights to the Tree of Life and the holy city (Rev. 22:19) Unvarnished NT/Gaus
• be led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. (2 Pet. 3:17) KJV
• be carried away with strange varieities of teachings (Heb. 13:9)

When does a book have good scholarship?

If a book is still relevant after 10 to 15 years of being originally published, then that pretty much is indicative of the book's scholarship. Usually, because of advancing scholarship, a book is revised every 10 or more years; though some are revised after only 5 years, but that is usually when a Hardcover is published into Softcover or something like that (sometimes there's revisions because of poor proofreading but is not totally indicative of its worth).

Crucifixion in Antiquity

Email:

Dear Friends

You have shown interest in my doctoral thesis, Crucifixion in Antiquity. The book will be published in the series Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament II by Mohr Siebeck next summer. The e-mail address to the publisher is order@mohr.de or info@mohr.de. For further information about the book, please log on to my web site http://www.exegetics.org.

Yours,

Gunnar Samuelsson

John 8:58 Rendering

John 8:58 "Jesus said to them, 'As God is my witness, I existed before there was an Abraham.'" - The Complete Gospels: Annotated Scholars Version

Revelation 3:14-16

(Revelation 3:14-16) . . .“And to the angel of the congregation in La‧o‧di‧ce′a write: These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God, 15 ‘I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were cold or else hot. 16 So, because you are lukewarm and neither hot nor cold, I am going to vomit you out of my mouth.

Note how Jesus says he 'wishes' that the congregation of Laodicea were either "cold" or "hot." Many have understood these texts to mean 'cold spiritually' or 'hot spiritually', but would Jesus really want Christians to be 'cold spiritually'? Apparently he would, since he 'wishes' for them to be so. However, I find that understanding absurd.

Clearly, or perhaps not so clearly, but i would suggested that "hot (water)" is in reference to the congregations spirituality, of course. But this I would take it as "stimulating hot" and "refreshingly cold." "Lukewarm" water is neither stimulating or refreshing.

Historical Studies of the Bible

On my YouTube account, I've received numerous messages asking me what this whole "Historical Jesus", "Historical Paul", and other related issues are all about. I'll dedicate this blog entry to answer that question.

The Historical Jesus and other related issues basically boils down to this: without presupposing the Bible is true or inspired, without presupposing Christianity is true and without presupposing the New Testament as a whole is true or inspired, how much can you prove about Jesus? That is, how much of Jesus' life, teachings and deeds can you prove through the historical method(ologies) without involving or relying upon theology and faith?

Honorably, many conservative and evangelical scholars have devoted many years to these issues. Some of them include Gary Habermas, Norman Geisler, William Lane Craig, Mike Licona, Craig L. Blomberg, Richard Bauckham, Darrell Bock, D. A. Carson, Craig S. Keener, N. T. Wright, James Dunn, Lee Strobel, among many others.

So, when one hears about the "historical Jesus" and the like, it refers to that which can be proven through the historical method(s). Now, whether those methods are problematic or not is a whole different issue (and they are an issue because they automatically rule out the possibility of any type of miracles [supernaturalism])!

Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?

I've offered a brief review of James Dunn's book, Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?: The New Testament Evidence: http://ivanmonroy.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/did-the-first-christians-worship-jesus-the-new-testament-evidence/

Vatican library reopens

The Vatican's Apostolic Library is reopening to scholars following a three-year, euro9-million ($11.5- million) renovation to install climate-controlled rooms for its precious manuscripts and state-of-the-art security measures to prevent theft and loss.

Some 4,000 to 5,000 scholars are given permission to conduct research in the library every year; access is generally restricted to academics conducting post-graduate level research. None of the items in the library can be checked out, and rules for working inside are strict: No pens, food or even mineral water are allowed in the manuscript reading room.

Researchers will now find improved communications and elevator access to the Vatican's vast collections, as well as a new tower inside the Vatican's Belvedere Courtyard to ferry manuscripts from their bomb-proof bunker to climate-controlled consultation rooms. Inside the bunker itself, fire- proof and dust-proof floors and walls were installed to further protect the manuscripts.

The library's 70,000 books have been outfitted with computer chips to prevent loss and theft, closed-circuit cameras have been installed and new automated entry and exit gates keep tabs on who is coming in and going out.

The library was started by Pope Nicholas V with an initial 350 Latin manuscripts. By the time Nicholas died in 1455, the collection had swelled to about 1,500 codices and was the largest in Europe.

Today, the Vatican Library has about 150,000 volumes of manuscripts as well as the "Codex B" — the oldest known complete Bible.

Read more:http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ix4w9lQwSVMnRwU98km4cK67orxwD9I736KG1

Currently Reading Two Books

A book which I've been reading, and that I plan to review on my WordPress blog, is James Dunn's Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?: The New Testament Evidence.

So far, it hasn't been what I expected though I heard the real meat of the book is chapter 4 entitled: "The Lord Jesus Christ." (I just finished chapter 3) First chapters are pretty boring; they just deal with the Gr. word for worship and see if it is applied to Jesus and things like that. It's a pretty dry read, in my opinion. However, if one has never really studied these issues in any meaningful depth, then maybe it may be an interesting read.

I've also been reading 20 Compelling Evidences that God Exists: Discover Why Believing in God Makes So Much Sense by Kenneth Boa and Robert Bowman Jr, and to be honest, I'm not in the least impressed thus far. If I were an atheist I would remain an atheist after reading this book. Granted, I've only read 5 of the "evidences" thus far, but the first few were pretty weak "evidences." For example, the first "evidence" for proving God's existence is that Christianity takes reality seriously. WHAT!? How's that a good argument and how is that "compelling"?

I suppose one could say that Christianity offers an account for what actually happened and will happen. That is, it is not like other religions where they merely offer good thoughts and beliefs, but do not and will not say that those "thoughts" and "beliefs" will be reality.

At best, in my opinion, that argument only proves that Christianity is a viable option in the marketplace of ideas. It offers a credible, plausible worldview for the way things are and why they are the way they are. But that argument (Christianity takes reality seriously) does not go on to show that God exists, in my opinion. Be that as it may, I will offer a review of this book in my WordPress blog.

Sex: Part 2

Sex: Part 2
(Don't click the footnotes)

As mentioned in Part 1, sex is mentioned and alluded to more than some people give the Bible credit for; it is demonstrably not silent on the issue. Here in this entry I will further cite instances in the Bible where sexual relations are placed in a positive light. Song of Solomon 1:2-3:

Oh, how I wish you5would kiss me passionately! For your lovemaking is more delightful than wine.- The NET Bible

The Septuagint reading is odd:

Let him kiss me from his mouth’s kisses! For your breasts are good beyond wine,

It would be odd for a man’s “breasts” to be “good beyond wine” so the preferred reading, according to the NET Bible footnote, would be to understand “breasts” to be a reference to “lovemaking.” Be that as It may, the point is that sex is portrayed as something “delightful” and surely as something to be enjoyed by married couples. Here again, though, we see that sex need not be limited to its primary purpose, that is, to produce offspring. Song of Solomon 2:6:

His left hand caresses my head and his right hand stimulates me.- The NET Bible

The Hebrew word rendered “stimulates” can alternately be rendered “embrace”, however given to the sexual nature of this particular chapter and Book, it may be best to understand “stimulate” as in Proverbs 5:20.[1] However, this may simply be in reference to courtship while dating; gestures such as holding hands and the like. I’ll let the reader decide for themselves. Song of Solomon 4:16:

Awake, O north wind; come, O south wind! Blow on my garden so that its fragrant spices may send out their sweet smell. May my beloved come into his garden and eat its delightful fruit!- The NET Bible

Commenting on this verse one commentary states “The beloved’s request that the winds blow on her garden, that is, herself (cf. vv. 12, 15) was a delicate, poetically beautiful invitation to her lover to fully possess her (come into her). She wished to be his with her charms as available as fruit on a tree (cf. v. 13).”[2] Whether this interpretation is correct or not is an evaluation for the reader to make. The point that I wish to highlight is that it is perfectly natural for women, specifically wives, to have sexual desires that need satisfying by their husbands. Indeed, the Apostle Paul brings up this same point:

(1 Corinthians 7:3-5, NWT) Let the husband render to [his] wife her due; but let the wife also do likewise to [her] husband. 4 The wife does not exercise authority over her own body, but her husband does; likewise, also, the husband does not exercise authority over his own body, but his wife does. 5 Do not be depriving each other [of it], except by mutual consent for an appointed time, that YOU may devote time to prayer and may come together again, that Satan may not keep tempting YOU for YOUR lack of self-regulation.

Or as the NET Bible more explicitly says:

A husband should give to his wife her sexual rights, and likewise a wife to her husband. It is not the wife who has the rights to her own body, but the husband. In the same way, it is not the husband who has the rights to his own body, but the wife. Do not deprive each other, except by mutual agreement for a specified time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer.

This verse emphasizes the sexual obligations that each spouse in the marriage needs to comply with. Whenever the wife’s sexual desires needs to be met or satisfied, it is the husband’s marital duty to do so. It also works the other way, if the husband has sexual needs as well, then it’s the wife’s marital duty to satisfy them. As the New World Translation puts it, “Do not be depriving each other of it”, that is, of each other’s body’s in order to satisfy sexual needs.

I hope with the two entries submitted thus far, a greater appreciate has been had for the Bible’s positive treatment of sexual relations and of the marital duty of both wife and husband to comply with their own sexual needs. The Bible describes sex as something “delightful” and of something that is only permissible for married couples. However, there is still a question to be had: What sorts or types of sexual acts are accepted between married couples? What does the Bible say about oral sex and the like? Part 3 will answer some of these questions.

---

[1] The verb חָבַק (khavaq) has a two-fold range of meanings in the Piel stem: (1) to embrace or hug someone (Gen 29:13; 33:4; 48:10; Job 24:8; Prov 4:8; Eccl 3:5; Lam 4:5) and (2) to fondle or sexually stimulate a lover (Prov 5:20; Song 2:6; 8:3) (HALOT 287 s.v. חבק; BDB 287 s.v. חָבַק). The verb designates an expression of love by the position or action of one’s hands (TWOT 1:259). (NET Footnote)

[2] The Bible Knowledge Commentary : An Exposition of the Scriptures

Sex: Part 1

Sex: Part 1
(Don't click the footnotes, they'll take you off the page!)

Sex. In many circles, it’s considered taboo to speak about it and much more condemnable to speak about it in public. As one journalist said, “no one really wants to talk about it, it remains hidden within our inner being, trapped like a volcano spewing to burst.”[1] Further, it seems that religions, even Christianity, have helped express the notion that sex is a shameful, immoral act. True, many times in the Bible there seems to be a negative connotation when anything sexual is involved, but it is usually, if not always, in a context of adultery/fornication.

But outside of an adulterous context, what is the Bible’s view on sex? Some have suggested that sex is merely for reproduction purposes and nothing else. Indeed, they cite such texts as Genesis 1:28 where it says,

Further, God blessed them and God said to them: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving upon the earth.”

Of course, sex’s primary purpose was to populate the earth but it was not just limited to such an act. In fact, the Bible says otherwise.

(Genesis 26:8-9) . . .So it came about that as his days there extended themselves A‧bim′e‧lech, king of the Phi‧lis′tines, was looking out of the window and taking in the sight, and there was Isaac having a good time with Re‧bek′ah his wife. 9 At once A‧bim′e‧lech called Isaac and said: “Why, she is no other than your wife! So how is it that you said, ‘She is my sister’?” At this Isaac said to him: “I said it for fear I should die on her account.”

Concerning the phrase “having a good time,” some Bible commentaries note that it expresses the “exchanging [of] conjugal caresses”[2] but that is “a display of affection between husband and wife in public that is culturally acceptable.”^[3] The Hebrew word that is used here, ṣā∙ḥǎq, can mean several different things since its meaning is context dependent. We do know, however, that the word can mean laugh, joy, play, and in a sexual context mean “caress, fondle, engage in foreplay, i.e., indulge in physical sexual play.”[4] Whatever the case maybe, this is a clear example of where sex (or sexual acts) is portrayed in such a way that is not only appropriate, but that functions as something other than the primary purpose of sex.

Another text worth consider is Proverbs 5:18-19:

18 Let your wife be a fountain of blessing for you. Rejoice in the wife of your youth. 19 She is a loving deer, a graceful doe. Let her breasts satisfy you always. May you always be captivated by her love.

For those not familiar with Hebrew thought and poetry, it may seem odd to compare one’s wife with a “deer” and “doe” (plural form of dove). However it’s not that odd at all when one realizes that in a Hebrew cultured-context “the phrase “loving deer and a graceful doe” is a reference to animals commonly used in Semitic poetry as figures of female beauty and endearment.”[5]

Indeed, this verse teaches that “just as a husband should show consideration for his wife because she is of a more delicate constitution, so a wife should recognize her husband’s emotional and sexual needs. The Bible indicates that a man and his wife should take delight in each other and satisfy each other. That requires sensitivity to each other’s needs and moods.”[6] This ‘taking delight in each other and satisfying each other’ involves satisfying one’s self with his wife’s breasts, whether that involves caressing, fondling or orally stimulating them. Of course, this sort of sexual expression is only limited to “your wife” (see verse 18) and not to unmarried people, even if they are engaged.

Many other examples can be cited, but I’ll leave that for a future entry, namely, Part 2.

---

[1] http://www.globalpolitician.com/22818-sex

[2] A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis

^[3]Reyburn, William David ; Fry, Euan McG.: A Handbook on Genesis. New York : United Bible Societies, 1997 (UBS Handbook Series), S. 595

[4] Swanson, James: Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains: Hebrew (Old Testament

[5] Believer's Study Bible, (Nashville : Thomas Nelson, 1997) Proverbs 5:19.

[6] Showing Love and Respect as a Wife, Watchtower May 15, 1989 p 19, par 16.

The Historical Reliability of the Gospels

I've offered a review of Craig L. Blomberg's book here: http://ivanmonroy.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/the-historical-reliability-of-the-gospels/

Acts 7:59 Revisted

The pale zombie looking person in the red robe is supposed to be Stephen. If the above image is accurate enough to portray what actually occurred, how can anyone claim he was "praying" to Christ as the explanation for his "calling on Jesus," when it would seem the better explanation is that he exclaimed to him in a vision as the image seems to express?

The "I am" saying of John 8:58

Jesus is described as using the formula 'I am' much more often in the Fourth Gospel than in the Synoptics, but it is not clear that these revelations make his claims for himself that much more explicit. Jesus' apparently ungrammatical proclamation 'before Abraham was born, I am' may refer back to the divine name revealed in Exodus 3:14, 'I am what I am', but it is not obvious that in rigidly monotheistic context of Judaism this would be the only conclusion drawn. The fact that the Jews immediately tried to stone him does not mean they understood his statement as a direct equation of himself with God. Claiming that Abraham had seen his day itself bordered on blasphemy, and the Jews had already tried to kill him for much less 'crimes', such as healing on the Sabbath and speaking of God's love for the Gentiles! Stephen Motyer plausibly concludes that John 8:58 'would not be heard as a claim to be God. It would be heard as a claim to be a divine agent, anointed with the name and powers of God, and (in this case) active in the genesis of Abraham.'- Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gosepls: Second edition (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2007), pp 209-210.

Craig L. Blomberg

Craig L. Blomberg is one of my favorite New Testament Scholars. He's usually balanced in evaluating the evidence on a given issue, but what standouts is the erudition he demonstrates in dealing with any given topic. Of course, I don't agree with every conclusion he draws [Trinity, bodily resurrection, etc.], but I find him to be a fine academic when defending the reliability of the Bible. He's written many helpful books on this issue, one of which I'm currently reading and plan to review in my WordPress blog.

To quote Denver Seminary's page:

Dr. Craig Blomberg joined the faculty of Denver Seminary in 1986. He is currently a distinguished professor of New Testament.

"Dr. Blomberg completed his PhD in New Testament, specializing in the parables and the writings of Luke-Acts, at Aberdeen University in Scotland. He received an MA from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and a BA from Augustana College. Before joining the faculty of Denver Seminary, he taught at Palm Beach Atlantic College and was a research fellow in Cambridge, England with Tyndale House. In addition to writing numerous articles in professional journals, multi-author works and dictionaries or encyclopedias, he has authored or edited 15 books, including The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (now revised in a 21st century edition), Interpreting the Parables, Matthew for the New American Commentary series, 1 Corinthians for the NIV Application Commentary series, Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey; Neither Poverty nor Riches: A Biblical Theology of Possessions;Making Sense of the New Testament; Preaching the Parables; Contagious Holiness: Jesus’ Meals with Sinners; and From Pentecost to Patmos: An Introduction to Acts through Revelation. [hyperlinks, mine]"

For more information about Dr. Blomberg or of his publications see here: http://www.denverseminary.edu/craig-blombergs-blog-new-testament-musings/

A New Book Review

I reviewed Geisler's (and Nix) book entitled: A General Introduction to the Bible over on my wordpress account: http://ivanmonroy.wordpress.com/2010/09/08/a-general-introduction-to-the-bible/

Best,

Ivan

Burn a Qu'ran Day-- Just Plain Stupid

It is extremely offensive to burn or destroy another religion's Holy Book(s); it is even worse when one tries to make a political statement out of such ignorance. This is why God's people don't and shouldn't ever get involved in politics:

Mark 10:16

(Mark 10:16) . . .And he took the children into his arms and began blessing them, laying his hands upon them. . .

Have you ever wondered what it meant to be 'given a blessing' or what it meant when Jesus gave a blessing to someone else? Perhaps some in their own minds picture something like the above image.

Note what one sources says about this verse and about the cultural context of a 'blessing' in the first century when Jesus, our Lord, was walking this earth.

kateulogeō (only here in the N.T.; cf. eulogeō 6.41) ‘bless’: in accordance with the customs of the time, we are to understand that Jesus invoked God’s blessings upon them (‘May God bless you’) rather than pronounced a blessing himself (‘I bless you’). Some commentators and translators understand the preposition kata in this compound verb to have the meaning ‘tenderly,’ ‘warmly,’ ‘lovingly.’ The imperfect of the verb describes Jesus blessing the children one by one, not all at the same time. ( A Handbook on the Gospel of Mark. New York : United Bible Societies, 1993)

Indeed, a blessing in the context of Jesus' day meant an invoking or petitioning to Jehovah God for another's well being. This one invoking a blessing for another didn't claim that he himself could take credit for the blessing of the person, but that it was God alone who could bless an individual. Concerning the laying of hands one commentary notes:

What exactly did people hope to receive from the touch and blessing of Jesus? The ritual of blessings was well known in Israel. Noah blessed Shem and Japheth (Gen 9:26–27), Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau (Gen 27; 28:1–4), and Jacob blessed his sons and grandsons (Genesis 48–49). Such blessings tended to be officious in nature, related particularly to the passing on of one’s name or property. “A father’s blessing establishes the houses of his children,” declares Sir 3:9. The laying on of hands was also a priestly rite of investiture in Israel, whereby wisdom (Deut 34:9) and the spirit of office (Num 27:18–20) were conferred on the ordinand. This rite was also continued in early Christianity (Acts 6:1–6; 13:1–3). (The Pillar New Testament Commentary)

We note that the laying hands on people during a blessing was a characteristic of Israelite priests, and Jesus as high priest-designate surely had all sorts of rights to do so. Moreover, I should note that the Greek word for 'bless' is in the imperfect tense, suggesting that Jesus was continually blessing the children. The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures does a great job of producing the verb as "began blessing" them. This rendering accurately reflects not only the meaning of the verb, but also the aspect of the verb. Many Bibles lose Greek-gems like this in their English Translations, so I thought I'd point that out.

Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

Typical atheist response is: if everything has a first cause, then who created God?

The question is invalid and self-contradicting for several reasons.

1. The phrase of the first premise is "whatever begins to exist.." Theists don't argue that the First Cause "began to exist."

2. Granting that God began to exist, then that means that the person who created God began to exist and this would continue indefinitely. That in itself is contradictory because we cannot have an infinite amount of events in the past because we wouldn't be here in the present if that were so!

3. Final reason why the atheist response is invalid is that it is generally recognized that universe began to exist, therefore something or someone had to "cause" it to exist. The First Cause by definition wouldn't itself be "caused" because if it were, then, it wouldn't be the First Cause would it?