Site Meter
Showing posts with label Technology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Technology. Show all posts

30 July 2012

Good Deeds, Righteousness, or Alms?

A few days ago I talked about the differences in a few English Bible translations. Not the standard kind of "thee" versus "you" differences, and not the bigger, deep theological sorts of differences. Something in between, really. This post will follow up where I left off and is a little longer than usual.

In Matthew 6:1, Jesus says that we shouldn't be making a showy spectacle of ourselves as we do good stuff. We should not help people so that we'll get attention and credit for doing something good. (At the same time, we should be an example to people around us; our motivation is the key.)

In that verse the New Living Translation quotes Jesus as saying, "Don't do your good deeds publicly, to be admired by others..." The phrase "good deeds" is also used in Matthew 5:16: "Let your good deeds shine out for all to see..."

I thought it odd that Jesus would speak of exactly the same acts twice within five minutes of each other, once saying to do them publicly and next saying to do them privately, so I looked at the English Standard Version for a different perspective. Sure enough, while in 5:16 the ESV says "let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works," it says in 6:1 "beware of practicing your righteousness before other people..." Must be a different Greek word(s) in the two verses, I reasoned. This proved to be correct.

In my Blue Letter Bible app for iPhone (which I tend to use more than YouVersion because it has a Greek interlinear feature), looking at the Greek text, "good works" (καλός ἔργον - kalos ergon) mentioned in 5:16 are specific works. "Kalos" means beautiful or good, and "ergon" means to work, toil, or labor. "Righteousness" (δικαιοσύνη - dikaiosunē) in 6:1 focuses more along the lines of a person's good character (equity of character or action), meaning to me that the latter was saying, "Don't try to get people to think that you're all pious and stuff. Be humble."

Good enough to give clarity the two passages. And then I looked at the King James Version.

"Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them..." Zoiks! That's different. I saw no way of rendering "dikaiosunē" to mean alms or money, so I checked another interlinear Bible at Scripture4All.org. Imagine my surprise when I noted that Matthew 6:1 used the Greek word "ἐλεημοσύνη" -- eleēmosunē. This means "compassionateness" (is that even a word?) or alms, as exercised toward the poor. This made Jesus' words in 6:1 have a much more focused point. He was literally talking about giving to the poor; a specific kind of work that we shouldn't trumpet so people will see us being all philanthropic and what-not.

But why the differences in the Greek text? It's easy to understand the variances in English translations, but could be a big deal if someone's using a different Greek manuscript.

Ever notice the footnotes in your Bible that say things like, "Some manuscripts add Bless those who curse you. Do good to those who hate you."? I'll bet you have. Have you seen the footnote at Mark 16:8? "The most reliable early manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark end at verse 8. The majority of manuscripts include the 'longer ending' immediately after verse 8."

Here's the tip of the iceberg: the King James Version was translated from a manuscript called Textus Receptus, meaning "the received text." Almost all modern translations rely primarily on other manuscripts, notably Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus (interestingly, Sinaiticus was discovered in St. Catherine’s Monastery at Mount Sinai in 1844, supposedly in a wastebasket about to be burned to help heat the monestary). The latter two, dating to about the 4th century A.D., are older than the most recent copies of Textus Receptus by a few hundred years, so one line of reasoning says these must, then, be more accurate manuscripts. But not so fast! You'll find that many phrases from Textus Receptus that are omitted in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are quoted by sources within 50 years of Jesus' resurrection.

Here we have the source of a debate that has remained strong (heck, it's raged) for several hundred years now, though it is much less visible than many other debates in the Church.

My point is not to fan the flames of that debate. I'm not saying that the KJV, translated in 1611, is superior to modern translations. I'm not even arguing for one ancient manuscript over another. What I'm saying is that we live in a fantastically wonderful time in history. Do you realize the breadth of ancient study materials available to the average person? How on earth could we squander these things? If we truly believe that we have in our possession a divine book that the Creator of the universe wrote/breathed so that we can know Him and know more about Him, why in the universe do we leave it sitting on the table, on a shelf, in a car floorboard, or in a drawer?

Why don't we take advantage of the amazing resources at our fingertips? Here are just a handful of online tools that you need to be taking advantage of:

  • The Blue Letter Bible -- Great site. The mobile app is only for iPad, iPod, and iPhone.
  • E-Sword -- A program rather than an online tool, and an absolute must-download. Not available in a mobile version.
  • BibleGateway.com -- What Chick-Fil-A is to southern Baptist churches, BibleGateway is to Christian internet users.
  • Online Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament -- Awesome but not optimized for mobile devices. Search results are in PDF files.
  • Online Interlinear Greek New Testament -- Again, awesome but not optimized for mobile devices. Search results are in PDF files.
  • BibleStudyTools.com -- This site comes highly recommended by many friends, but I haven't gotten too much mileage out of it. Looks good but a little cluttered.
  • Interlinear Bible -- Guess what this is.

    Here are some links that will help you research the differences between the various ancient manuscript sources for the Bible. You'll find that the debate can be quite heated. Most who embrace the KJV-only view have no room to tolerate anyone who disagrees. In their defense, this is the Word of God that we are discussing; not Beowulf.

  • GotQuestions.org -- What are Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus?
  • Textus Receptus
  • Codex Sinaiticus
  • Codex Vaticanus
  • NLT Frequently Asked Questions
  • KJV Today
  • Codex Sinaiticus: It Is Old But Is It The Best?
  • 19 March 2010

    please remove me from your distribution list?

    Wow, I feel awful. It's not my fault that I'm in this situation, either. See, I was added to the distribution list of someone who didn't ask my permission. Honestly, that doesn't offend me. Sure, it violates the "you shouldn't do that with e-mail" principle, but it's not a terribly big deal. But I'd like to unsubscribe, just because I get volumes of e-mail from friends and family that keep me occupied quite well. As a result, I wind up deleting almost every e-mail from the distribution list I'm talking about; not because I dislike the person or their efforts, but I suppose I'm obsessive about my inbox and would simply prefer that those mails not show up.

    The problem is, this person's e-mails are Christ-centered, grammatically correct, non-offensive, and for an amazingly good cause. The other problem is that there is no "unsubscribe" link because it's a manual e-mail list that a real, live person is maintaining. This means that in order to unsubscribe I'm going to have to e-mail an individual whose work and ministry I respect and essentially say, "Hey, man. I really think what you're doing is splendid, but I don't want to hear about it anymore -- leave me and my inbox alone."

    In the long run, this person needs to stop adding people to the list without permission, because frankly, when we violate the protocols of chivalrous e-mail sending, we're going to get someone mad at some point -- probably sooner rather than later. And if we add people without permission and our e-mail blasts are about Jesus...? That's an extra bad thing, because if the recipient doesn't know Christ we're giving them an open door to start to resent and bad-mouth "inconsiderate Christians."

    All this to say that I think too much about stuff. I should probably just e-mail and say, "Please remove me from your e-mail distribution list." And in the grand scheme of things, it won't hurt me to just keep on receiving the e-mails. I just thought about unsubscribing and all the stuff above hit me.

    If I personally know you, it's not your e-mail list that I'm talking about, so no worries, right?

    30 December 2009

    waking

    Today's post (which shares its title with Chapter 11 of Lewis Carroll's incredible work, "Through the Looking-Glass," which reads in its entirety, "--and it really WAS a kitten, after all.") has no significance or deep implication that I'm aware of, except maybe that it's time for me to consider either replacing my eight-year-old Windows computer or getting a Mac.

    I have a great little program that plays whatever MP3 I choose as an alarm every morning (today I think I had it set for Andy Williams' It's the Most Wonderful Time of the Year -- I'm allowed to do Christmas until January 1, I think). However, instead of a blaring MP3 waking me up, Jesse the Cat did so by knocking something off of the dresser beside my bed. You see, on the mornings I don't get out of bed at the usual time, like, oh, Saturdays, Jesse the Cat is faithful and diligent to let me know that I should already be up and about.

    Upon hearing a bottle of water and a bottle of Smucker's Caramel Sundae Syrup topple to the floor, I got up and walked over to the computer to see what time it was, and it showed 2:14 AM. Seeing light coming through the window and sensing that something was not quite right -- it didn't feel like 2:14, either -- I looked at my phone and it showed 6:32 AM. I immediately knew that there was at least a small chance that I might not make it to work at the typical time -- about 6:10.

    So ends my love affair with the "automatically-updating" clock in Windows XP. Actually, such a love affair never began. This assures that it never will.

    Posted during a short morning break...

    30 October 2008

    SongTapper

    SongTapper.com is a few years old, but my son reminded me about it not long ago.

    Ever get frustrated trying to remember a song for which you know a melody but can't remember the words? SongTapper.com is for you! Just tap the spacebar along with the rhythm of the melody of your song, and boom! Pretty good chance it'll spit out the name of the song you're hunting.

    It guessed the theme from "Superman," the theme from "Spider-Man" (the 60's cartoon) and "Amazing Grace" correctly the first time, but I tried "Shout to the Lord" once and "Learn to Fly" (by the Foo Fighters) twice and it didn't guess them. I also tried the theme from "The Good, The Bad and the Ugly," but I couldn't hit the space bar fast enough, so I can't blame that on SongTapper.

    Just wanted to pass along the fun. I'll bet you wind up tapping in more songs than you intended.

    28 October 2008

    Reliving the 80's!

    In the "Mysterious and Unanswered Questions" category, why did Aldo Nova put a song on the B-side of his now-double platinum eponymous 1982 album that was essentially ripping off one of his own songs from the other side of the album? (And why would I say "eponymous" instead of "self-titled"? Because it sounds classier!)

    For your consumption, here's a comparison:

    Fantasy vs. Under the Gun

    "Fantasy" is in the right speaker (speeded up a hair and pitch-corrected to match the other song) and "Under the Gun," the far-less-popular song, is in the left speaker at its original pitch and speed (slowing it would've sounded spooky).

    Were I in the studio way back when these were recorded, I'd have questioned the wisdom of the producer, but it was self-produced by Aldo Nova and artists usually regard their music as their offspring (hands-off), so he pretty much did what he wanted.

    All this to say that I sometimes get the urge to listen to classic songs from my earlier years. If I bought Aldo Nova back in 1983 and lost the album or let the cassette melt on my dashboard somewhere over the course of the last 25 years, am I morally justified in using Limewire or BitTorrent or something to find the album and download it without paying for it (again)?

    I mean, I did buy it, after all.

    Aside from the legal issue (I think I ought to purchase the music again if I want to hear it), here's the real question -- the one at the heart of the matter: if something you're doing doesn't really feel quite right but you don't know why it would technically be wrong, are you obligated as a Christ-follower to investigate before proceeding? or is "ignorance is bliss" the best policy?

    07 October 2008

    Mail Goggles

    I saw this at FoxNews.com and had to pass it along, though I'm not sure why. It's likely that most regular readers of this blog will probably not need this creative new feature of Gmail: Mail Goggles.

    "When you enable Mail Goggles, it will check that you're really sure you want to send that late night Friday email. And what better way to check than by making you solve a few simple math problems after you click send to verify you're in the right state of mind?"


    I'd love to know what the geniuses at Google can come up with to keep me from sending hurtful or offensive e-mails in the middle of the day. You know... the ones that you read and re-read eleventy-hundred times, are satisfied, and then send them, and realize a few seconds later that you said something that you're pretty sure will be taken as offensive?

    Nah, I've never sent one of those...

    Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More

     
    Design by Free WordPress Themes | Bloggerized by Lasantha - Premium Blogger Themes | Bluehost Review