Targuman Rotating Header Image

Bible

Latterday Latitudinarians Lumbering over the Limen

George F. Will has an excellent and fair summary of where the Episcopal church finds itself. You can find the article in the Washington Post: A Faith’s Dwindling Following. The summary is fairly straightforward:

As the church’s doctrines have become more elastic, the church has contracted. It celebrates an “inclusiveness” that includes fewer and fewer members.

He is, of course, not saying anything new or that we have not observed before. I have often marveled at how the so-called “progressives” in our church (I say “so-called” because such a term, like so many in politics, is used not to define oneself, but the other; the opposite of “progressive” is, of course, “regressive”) are so confounded as to why evangelical churches with a fairly straightforward message of repentance, acceptance of forgiveness, and Bible study have been growing so rapidly while our numbers dwindle. The answer is simple. Very few people want a religious community where “anything goes.”

People fundamentally understand that not everything can be equally right. We go to churches, synagogues, and mosques to hear guidance and direction. We know we aren’t perfect and recognize there must be a better way. The last thing we want to hear is “your OK just the way you are, don’t change a thing” because we know that we are not OK. A newer generation won’t get the reference, but we might say “I’m not OK and you’re not OK and that’s OK.” At the core of all the Bible and the Gospel particularly is the assertion that we and this creation were made for something much, much better than what we are now. We need clarity of message so that we can decide whether or not we agree with it. Say what you will about Willow Creek Bible Church, you know what they believe. You may not agree with them, which is fine, but you know what they believe. What does the Episcopal Church believe? Hmm. That’s a tough one….

In many ways I think that the Episcopal Church would be far, far better off if it simply decided to draw a clear line in the sand regarding the role and authority of Scripture. The church would probably lose members and it might gain them, but at least being decisive would allow those seeking a community of faith to know upon what (or whom) the Episcopal Church based their faith.  Be hot or be cold, but no one finds luke wark palatable.

 

Original Sin, Evolution, NT Wrong and Stephen Cook

Stephen Cook has a great series of discussions going on over at Biblishe Ausbildung regarding the above mentioned topic. I am working my way through it now and I think I am in agreement with Cook against Wrong. I have some thoughts on this topic and hope to share them so. For now, a teaser.

Cook says (playing the devil’s advocate for Domning and Wimmer)

Before the advent of free-will, they would see “sin” as not yet sin but merely all those selfish behaviors and drives that are homologous between animals and humans.

I don’t think I would speak of free-will as having an “adven” per se. It seems to me that having a free-will is part of our nature, having been created “in the image of God.” I understand that much of this discussion involves embracing evolution, with which I have no problem. I believe that one can accept evolution and still retain this vital and fundamental trait of humanity. That being given I would argue that free-will is present and as such so is the potential for sin and evil. Sin and evil did not exist, as such, until it was actualized in the rebellious act of Eve and Adam.

That is just a bit of where my thoughts are going with this. I have to say that I find it tough to read Stephen’s blog online because of the white text on the black background. It really does strain my eyes and require me to take frequent breaks. Am I just a whiner or has anyone else had the same trouble?

 

Another take on Gen. 3

Myth080923

Mythtickle by Justin Thompson

Not the best Adam-Eve-Apple-Computer comic I have ever seen, but I do like the groggy, bandaged Adam. Somehow I never quite saw the first-born of all creation potbellied with a comb over. I suppose that is what married life can do to you. *ducks behind the sofa before things start flying*

 

The writing is on the wall.

Frazz

Frazz by Jef Mallett

 

SBL Handbook of Style Rules

Who made these up? Why is it that biblical book abbreviations do not have periods and are not italicized but rabbinic works are? E.g., “We find in Exod 3:15 that… whereas in Exod. Rab. we find….” My current frustration (the hobgoblin of this little mind) is what to do with the targumim. Should it be Tg. Ruth or Tg. Ruth?

Oh, and here is another little inconstancy. They specifically state that the second Targum of Esther is Tg. Esth. II. So would you infer that all biblical references within a targumic title (e.g., Tg. Lam. 4:2) should now include a period? Harumph….