Over the 4th of July weekend, we went on a hike with some family members. The destination was the summit of Overlook Mountain in Woodstock, NY. It is a fairly easy hike — 2.5 miles up a fire road with a change of elevation of 1400 feet. The not too large, but steady grade of the trail makes it popular for casual hikers and runners. The fact that it is an access road trail makes the hike rather boring in terms of the scenery. We did not see much in the way of wild life either except for lots of tiny wood frogs. Timber rattlesnakes are suppose to nest in this area. They probably do not hang out on the trail so we had entertain ourselves by looking out for an old abandoned logging road.

The main motivation behind the hike (besides getting outdoors and all the other usual reasons) was the chance to explore the ruins of an old hotel near the summit. Back in the late 19th century the in thing to do if you were a developer was build a hotel on the top of a mountain in the Catskills. It took a long time to travel anywhere then and the richer residents of New York City needed to go somewhere to beat the heat. A hotel on the top of a mountain was the perfect solution. There are a few left, but most have been allowed to decay or have burned down. This hotel was the third try on this spot. All that is left is the concrete shell. The forest is slowly taking over. Trees are growing inside the structure. It takes a lot of imagination to picture what this six story structure could have looked like.

It is just a half a mile after the ruins to the top of the mountain. Given the name of the mountain, you might guess there are some views from the summit and you would be right. The best views are found by climbing up the fire tower. It was clear enough to see the Hudson River, but too hazy to take any good photos so you will have to be satisfied with a photo of my fellow hikers taken from the fire tower. One advantage of hiking up access roads is that they can be used to transport picnic tables to the summit.

Maintaining the style of the author is one mark of a good translation. There will always be limitations to this as literary style is very nuanced. I would expect a scholarly work to still sound scholarly in translation and similarly with a work that is more informal.

This brings me to the translation of Confessions by Augustine that I am currently reading. Given Augustine's education and his original profession as a rhetorician, I assume that his Latin would definitely fit in the scholarly category. In reading this version, there have been two times when I have come across a word that did not sound like it belonged in Augustine's writings. The second was the term "willy-nilly." Much of the text flows beautifully as he seamlessly integrates quotes from the Bible into his thoughts on his life and then I come to a clunker like "willy-nilly." I cannot imagine Augustine using slang like that if he were alive today and writing in English. I suppose I could try to dust off my Latin education and see what could be substituted there, but it is much easier to just complain about it.

You know those green spheroid vegetables you chase around your plate...they were originally called pease in English. You'd say pease if there were only one and pease if there were many. Some thought pease referred only to multiple peas on your plate or in a pod so English got a new word - pea. If you're interested in more ways English has changed, take a look at this page on the Linguistic Society of America website.

1 Corinthians 2:13 is one of those verses where each translation reads a little different. Here is how the verse is translated in the New American Standard Bible:

“which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.”

You may recognize this as a verse that often appears in discussions of verbal inspiration. The differences are not due to the underlying Greek texts used by the various Bible versions. There is only one variation between the Textus Receptus and the Nestle-Aland text: the word “Holy” does not appear in the latter text in connection with “Spirit.” The ambiguity is rather in our understanding of three Greek words within the context of this passage.

The first one (in the order of translation) is συγκρινοντες and only appears in two verses in the Bible. It has been translated as ‘comparing’ in the NKJV, ‘combining’ in the NASB, ‘interpreting’ in the ESV, ‘explaining’ in the HCSB, and ‘expressing’ in the NIV. The two other words that make up the clause do not provide much help due to their uncertain meaning. They are both forms of the Greek word πνευματικος. Bible translators are unsure of the gender of the second; it could be neuter or masculine. The first one is translated as ‘spiritual things’, ‘spiritual thoughts’, or ‘spiritual truths.’ The second becomes ‘spiritual’, ‘spiritual words’, ‘spiritual people’, or ‘spiritual men.’ This is a verse (more specifically, the last clause) where an expositor has to be careful putting too much emphasis on a particular word from his version of the Bible.

It has been 75 years since Grant Wood painted American Gothic. There was an enjoyable interview on NPR about it (click the Listen link at the top). One discussed topic was the interest people have in creating parodies of it.

In the past year I have been trying to do more reading in the area of church history - both original documents and history books. I believe understanding the formation of doctrine and practices in the church helps me to understand its current state. Modern "advances" can often be best understood through the lens of history. One brief, early church document that I have read is called the Didache. It is also referred to as the Teachings of the Twelve Apostles. It is believed to date to the late first or early second century based on its content and references in other writings.

The Didache is a collection of rules that were followed by first century churches (if you believe it is what it claims to be). The section on baptism caught my attention. According to it, the preferred way to perform a baptism is in a river. If a river is not available, a lake is the next best option - but make sure the water is cold. No cold water, then you can use warm and if all else fails, dump water on the person's head. Another interesting tidbit is that the person was instructed to fast for a day or two beforehand.

Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. - 1 Corinthians 1:16 (NASB)

This verse frequently comes up in discussions on infant baptism. I am more interested in how it relates to the inspiration of Scripture. God did not forget if Paul baptized others, and we believe Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write this letter to the Corinthians. How do we explain this? All the commentaries that I sought out for this very reason did not deal with it nor did any of the notes in the study bibles that I possess. It did not come up in Sunday School either. I was surprised by this since it was the first question that I had after reading this verse.

First, let's consider the competing theories of inspiration (this is not exhaustive). At one end of the spectrum is where God dictates everything word for word and the prophet or apostle is nothing more than an amanuensis. J.C. Ryle is an example of someone from this camp. [Edit: I was wrong about Ryle. John R. Rice is a possible example though.] On the other end are the more liberal Protestant scholars who are antisupernaturalistic and consider the writers of the Bible to be similar to Shakespeare or Aristotle in that they had great insight. In between are a wide range of possibilities including God inspiring the writers with the ideas or concepts and the actual words belonging to the authors. Verbal plenary inspiration is probably the most common theory among conservative evangelicals. It holds that God inspired more than concepts or thoughts down to the individual words but that the human writer played a contributing role also. There is a mystery to the interaction between the two, similar to Jesus being fully God and fully man.

Any theory of divine inspiration that is based on word for word or even thought for thought inspiration will be challenged to some extent to explain this verse. This is where a partial inspiration theory excels, but that is a slippery slope for it places each verse under the judgement of individual believers. How do those who hold to verbal plenary handle this? They probably say this is an example of the human nature of the author showing through. Did Jesus ever forget where he laid down his staff for that is certainly part of the human experience.

The Count of Monte Cristo by Alexandre Dumas - light reading - produced as a serial for a newspaper - keep those pages turning! A story of vengeance. The ending is unsatisfying - a man who has been consumed with revenge for so many years should not find happiness so easily - with a young, innocent Turkish slave girl. Men that cause false imprisonment (always the same with those French!) fall due to moral flaws.

Kiss Me Again, Stranger: A Collection of Eight Stories Long and Short by Daphne du Maurier - du Maurier best known for novel Rebecca. This collection includes The Birds which inspired the movie by the same name. Wouldn't classify exactly as suspense or horror - almost always a twist near the end - du Maurier feels comfortable leaving loose ends and unexplained events. Death a common theme so maybe macabre fits as a label. The Old Man was my favorite - recommend it.

Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis - collection of four books based on WWII radio talks. Author beloved by American evangelicals - his theology tended more towards Catholic Church over time. Gentle, grandfather-like tone - will be appreciated more by Christians - arguments don't hold up so well in post-modern world or under trained logic. Great metaphors - comforting read - honest.

It is important to be aware of one's assumptions when studying Scripture. The same is true when reading someone else's analysis of a passage. Being aware of the assumptions involves considering their certainty. In a comment on a previous entry, I presented a case where an assumption is applied with more confidence or rigidity than it might deserve. It precludes one or more interpretations that probably better fit the text than the one that results under a strict application of the assumption.

A positive example of applying a framework in the interpretation of a verse can be found in 1 Corinthians 2:10b - “The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God” (NIV). Reading this verse gives me the image of a man methodically exploring a library. The man learns new knowledge as he reads the books. We know that God is a triune God so this analogy is incorrect. The Spirit is God and therefore omniscient. The word searches could have been knows or understands, but those words do not have the sense of activity that search possess. No, searches is the right word, but we have to understand it differently from how we might search for car keys that were misplaced.

Christian History magazine has a fascinating article on what led to most English-speaking evangelicals using grape juice for communion. Who knew that Welch's got its start due to this?