Thoughts on the CSB (and they are good!)

csb

So, the Christian Standard Bible (CSB) was released this year.  It is something of an update to the HCSB that was previously released, but the revisions are so extensive that it has become its own translation, replacing the HCSB all the way around.

Let me give a little background on myself so that there can be some context to the rest of my post.  I mainly read the NIV (1984) for many years after becoming a Christian.  It was my  main Bible, while I would look at and compare others.  When the TNIV came out, I remained with the 1984 NIV (occasionally using the NASB or KJV) as my main translation.  In 2011, when Biblica revised the NIV and completely replaced the 1984, never to be supported or published again, I was not too happy with it.  I didn’t like some of the choices of how they chose to treat gender, and some of the ways they handled it in writing simply didn’t sound right to me.  While I understand the importance of making context clear (maybe saying “brothers and sisters” instead of merely “brothers” for the Greek word “adelphoi”), it seemed that the NIV went too far in some cases.  (This is personal preference, and I am aware that there are great scholars who feel the NIV got it just right.  I would not put myself on the same level as any of these scholars, and I don’t fault anyone who loves the NIV.)

For my purposes, I also found the permissions a little harder to obtain for the NIV.  So I began looking for a translation that would grant the permissions I needed to present Scripture dramatically.  After checking several translations and publishers, I ended up settling on the ESV.  I have used it for the last several years almost exclusively.  I have studied it, taught from it, and memorized large portions of it for presentation.

I did look at the HCSB, but some of the readings seemed to be a little too “new” for my liking.

When I heard the CSB was coming out, I was certainly interested.  I requested a sample, and was graciously given an entire copy to review.

Before I go further, for those who have not searched my blog a lot or don’t know me, I am in a different situation than some.  I have taught Sunday School and preached before, so I tend to look at translations from a teaching or scholarly perspective.  But my main form of ministry is presenting large portions of Scripture from memory in a dramatic way.  These two forms of ministering to others have caused some struggles in me as I try to look at translations.  From the teaching side, I want to be as close to the original text as possible, because I can explain anything that is culturally separate from our time, hard to understand, etc.  But from a presenting side, I don’t get to do that.  I get one shot to communicate as much meaning as possible, so a translation that clears up confusion for the reader by translating cultural issues into our current understanding is better.  To borrow Paul’s musing, which shall I decide?  I cannot tell; I am torn between the two.

Let me also add very clearly that my critiques of the CSB are not the final word in any way.  I believe Bill Mounce has said, “There is always a reason” for any translation choice, and just because it doesn’t make sense to me, doesn’t mean that it is wrong.  There is a lot I am not aware of with the translation process in general and, of course, the CSB in particular.  Still, as I compare, some of the thoughts that have come to mind are listed below.

I have taken a lot of time to read through large portions of the CSB, and I have also spent a lot of time comparing individual verses and words to the ESV, NASB, NET (with its extensive notes), and the original Greek (with what very limited knowledge I have).  Time and again I am seeing how the CSB has seemingly gotten a translation right where I may have originally questioned it.  Now, that is not to say it is perfect, but the more I look at it, read it, and examine it, the more I find where their translation decisions make sense.  It is also helpful that a representative of the CSB has taken several opportunities to respond to emails I have sent asking about translation decisions when I cannot find information to help me understand their choice.

A few examples are Revelation 5:6, where John writes “Then I saw one like a slaughtered lamb…”  Most translation say “a lamb that had been slain” or something like it.  While “slaughtered” is very different, it conveys more of the visual of what John would have seen; this lamb was not pretty.  And the Greek does allow that as a possible meaning of the word.

Revelation 7:17 in the CSB says “For the Lamb who is at the center of the throne will shepherd them.”  I believe the ESV says (and this is from memory, so if it is not correct, it is my fault) “will be their shepherd.”  Gramatically, the CSB has it here from what I can tell.  The word in the Greek is a verb not a noun.

While “propitiation” may be a great theological term, and one we need to know, the CSB’s choice in 1 John 2:2 of saying “He himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins” is clearer to the average reader, and, to me, ties it in to the Old Testament concept of sacrifice more clearly than the word “propitiation” does.

Revelation 5:4 in the CSB has John saying “I wept and wept.”  The ESV says “I wept loudly,” I believe.  As far as I can tell, the Greek is closest to saying “I wept much,” so the CSB seems closer to the Greek here.  (To me, someone weeping loudly does not imply how much they are crying, just how intense at that moment.)

In 1 Corinthians 13:5, the CSB says love “does not keep a record of wrongs,” versus the ESV’s “is not resentful.”  I believe the CSB, from my study, brings out the original word picture more clearly.

In Matthew 6:32, the CSB clearly brings out the tense of the verb by saying “For the Gentiles eagerly seek all these things.”  The ESV says “For the Gentiles seek after all these things.”  The same is true regarding the tense of the verb in Hebrews 12:2.

Now the CSB does translate “adelphoi” as “brothers and sisters” when they feel the context requires it, but unlike the NIV, I feel the CSB has a good balance here.  They are not afraid to still use “he” instead of switching to the plural “they” to avoid sounding gender specific.  They also don’t translate everything this way, but only when they think it is truly warranted by the context.  I find the CSB has a good balance of when to translate it inclusive of both men and women or not.

I could keep going with areas I think the CSB really gets the text right, but this post is already getting quite long.

That being said, there are areas I think the CSB could have gotten things a little better.  For example, in Matthew 13:13, the CSB says, “That is why I speak to them in parables, because looking they do not see, and hearing they do not listen or understand.”  In my limited knowledge, the Greek here gives a play on words by saying something like “seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear or understand.”  I like that word play, and I really wish I saw it here.

I also found a word missing (confirmed by someone from CSB) in Acts 22:3.  There should be some sense of a word “strict” or “thorough” related to Paul’s training in the law.  This was, as I understand it, a mere oversight while typing everything out, and it will be corrected.

In 1 Kings 18, the ESV has Elijah taunting the prophets of Baal by insinuating that their God had gone away to relieve himself, but the CSB says “maybe he has wandered away,” relegating the ESV’s text to the footnotes.

Psalm 19:5 in the ESV says something like “a groom coming from his bridal chamber,” whereas the CSB says “like a bridegroom coming from his home.”  I’m sure there is an explanation for this, and I have not asked yet, but most translations seem to align with the ESV, from what I can tell.

One of the hardest to get used to is in Daniel 5:6, where the king is so frightened after seeing the writing on the wall that “his face turned pale, and his thoughts so terrified him that he soiled himself and his knees knocked together.”  Most translations imply his legs gave out or something along those lines.  I have read an article explaining why the CSB went the way it did, and I can see it, though a scholar of ANE languages said he felt it was a stretch.

In the 23rd psalm, they chose to switch from “I shall not want” or even “There is nothing I lack” (both of which I have seen before) to “I have what I need.”  Ultimately, the meaning is not obscured, but I wonder why the switch to get rid of the negative word from the Hebrew that I believe is there and is reflected in the first two options mentioned here.

The CSB also says “He lets me lie down in green pastures” as opposed to the more common “He makes me lie down in green pastures” (ESV).  I like the idea of making/causing more than merely permitting (which seems to be implied in “lets”).

Deuteronomy 10:12 is another verse I am not sure about.  The ESV says something like “…and to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul.”  The CSB says “…and to worship the Lord your God will all your heart and all your soul.”  Most translations agree with the ESV here, and from what I can tell, the Hebrew word seems to usually mean “serve.”

Again, in all of these critiques, I understand that the translators had a reason.  Maybe I will be able to find out what it is through study and maybe emailing someone.

Because of my ministry, I also tend to think about presenting out loud.  That is the one area where the ESV, for example, is a great translation: it is very poetic and rhythmic, and it retains a lot of that from the KJV.  For presenting out loud, that rhythmic, literary sound is great.  But it is not always natural.

The CSB definitely sounds more like how we would normally communicate with each other.  They use contractions (don’t we all?), and its word order is more like common English speech, breaking with Greek and Hebrew word order to do this.  Some people like this, while some do not.

But there are times where the CSB becomes a little more difficult.  Jeremiah 31:31-34 is an example.  Most translations say “thus says the Lord” or “says the Lord.”  The CSB says “this is the Lord’s declaration” or “the Lord’s declaration.”  It says it 4 times in these 4 verses, for example.  What’s interesting is that it is very accurate to the Hebrew, from what I can tell.  (The NET notes specify the Hebrew says “the Lord’s oracle.”)  The problem is, it doesn’t flow as smoothly when speaking out loud, in my opinion.

Another example of where the speaking out loud comes in to play is when someone’s quotes are interrupted by saying who is talking.  John 1:21 in the CSB says “‘What then?’ they asked him. ‘Are you Elijah?'”  The ESV puts who is speaking first always (as does the Greek, from what I can tell).  In this verse, for example, it says “And they asked him, ‘What then? Are you Elijah?'”  When reading, there is no issue here; if anything, the CSB keeps things fresh and from getting too repetitive.  But when presenting out loud from memory, it can be easier to preface with who is talking to show transition in speakers.

Where this has been difficult for me is that for the last few years I have been conditioned to think of the most formal/literal translation as the best.  But as I have presented dramatically, I have questioned that somewhat.

If I am presenting to a crowd of people, all of whom are at various stages in their Biblical literacy, is it better to say “not an iota, not a dot will pass from the law” as the ESV does (since not everyone may understand what an iota is), or should I say “not the smallest letter or one stroke of a letter” as the CSB does?  What about “Sufficient for the day is its own trouble” (ESV) instead of “Each day has enough trouble of its own” (CSB)?

When I present, I cannot stop and clarify hard-to-understand ideas and terms like I could if I were preaching or teaching.  So I have grown more to think that it may be better for me to present something that will more clearly communicate meaning without hindrance to hearers.

What’s really interesting is that it seems you have to possibly stop either way.  If you use a formal translation, you often have to stop and explain what the text means to communicate to your hearers.  If you use a dynamic translation, however, you may have to do the opposite, stopping and explaining what the original text said.  So it sort of becomes a toss up as to which way you go.

Of course, the CSB is willing to break with tradition for the sake of accuracy (look at Psalm 23, for example), and that could be jarring to some people who are so used to hearing “Yea, though I walk through valley of the shadow of death” (KJV) as opposed to “Even when I go through the darkest valley” (CSB).  The CSB is more accurate here.  But people are so used to hearing it the other way that I wonder if they might reject hearing the CSB version just because it sounds so different.  But I am also wondering if I should elevate tradition above clarity and accuracy?

Is the CSB a perfect translation?  No.  Believe me, while I would like one, in my studies I have quickly found it does not exist.  Is the CSB a good translation?  Absolutely!  It stays very literal (sometimes more so than even the NASB or ESV) while still being very readable and clarifying ideas when needed.  It sounds very natural while reading aloud, which is a big consideration for me with what I do.

I have not decided completely whether I will be making the switch from ESV to CSB yet or not, but I am certainly leaning toward it greatly.  The more I read the CSB, the more I like it.  Yes, it loses some of the literary quality of the ESV, and yes, it sometimes loses the cultural distance of a formal translation.  But it gains readability and understandability, which are very important factors as well.  The translation reminds me very much of what the 1984 NIV used to be, although the CSB is a little more literal.

I look forward to continuing to dig in to the CSB more, to learn more about it, and to keep comparing it to other translations and the original languages as I am able.  I must say I am quite impressed.  I think, last I saw, it was already #6 out of the top 10 Bibles in terms of sales, and that is only after less than one year.  They are producing some great editions (some of which I hope to review eventually), and the translation is a sheer joy to read.

If you haven’t checked out the CSB, I strongly encourage you to do so!

 

Advertisements

Book Review – CSB Reader’s Bible

I have recently become a huge fan of Reader’s Bibles.  I love the simplicity of only the text on the page without the distractions of chapter numbers, verse numbers, and footnotes, helpful as they may all be.  I currently have a six-volume ESV reader edition, a one-volume ESV reader edition, and the NIV Books of the Bible reader edition.

One recent (re)translation that has come out is the Christian Standard Bible (CSB).  I have enjoyed reading through that translation, and I was excited to hear that they had a Reader’s Edition being released.  Upon request, the publisher agreed to send me a copy to review.

The edition I received was a gray cloth over board edition.  Interestingly, the slipcase is the same cloth over board material as the Bible itself, which was a nice tough in my opinion.

CSB R 1

CSB R 2

CSB R 3

CSB R 4

The Bible is well constructed, and it lays flat from the very first page of the Table of Contents all the way to the end.

CSB R 5

The font is a decent size and boldness, which makes for easy reading.  The paper is very white, but that helps the text stand out. Because it is a one-volume edition, the paper is not as thick as the multi-volume editions released by other publishers; it can’t be if you want a portable Bible.  But the line matching helps to minimize ghosting from one page to the next.

Each chapter starts with a larger initial letter in a blue font, and the same blue font is used at the bottom of the page to give you a rough guide as to what book and chapter you are reading in.  This could be helpful if one were to take the Bible to church to read with, although you would still need to listen to the context and be familiar with it, as there are no verse numbers throughout.  It also retains the bold font for quotations from the Old Testament in the New Testament.  There are maps in the back, but there are no guides as to what page numbers certain chapters could be found on.

CSB R 6

CSB R 10

CSB R 11

I like the CSB’s use of setting new dialogue in different paragraphs, more like a modern novel would.  It helps me keep track of who is talking when.  This has always been a weakness of the ESV to me, as they may have a back-and-forth conversation all in one paragraph.

CSB R 12

The Bible does include on dark blue ribbon bookmark to help you keep track of where you are reading.

To me, the CSB Reader’s Bible is almost the perfect layout.  I love the font, and the boldness of the text.  It doesn’t seem too cramped on a page.  But the one thing I wish they had done is take more of a note from Biblica’s Books of the Bible set or the six-volume ESV set and do away with chapter numbers all the way around, possibly redividing text by thought.  I understand that keeping the beginning of chapters noted with the large blue first letter helps orient some readers, but it still forces an unnatural division into the text.  It’s almost like the CSB Reader’s Bible got right on the verge of producing one of the “perfect” Reader’s Bibles and stopped just short of the final goal.

All in all, the CSB Reader’s Bible is a welcome addition to my collection of reader’s editions, and it is one I will refer to again and again.

*Note: I received a complimentary copy of the book from the publisher in exchange for my honest review.

Book Review – ESV Devotional Psalter

A while back, Crossway had released an ESV Psalms standalone book.  A little more recently, to help move the psalms into a devotional use, they released the ESV Devotional Psalter.  Crossway was kind enough to send me a copy to review.  (I will say at the outset, please forgive any blurry pictures.  My camera phone does what it wants half the time.)

There are many similarities between the two, including the layout, the font, and paper type, and the color scheme used. The paper is thicker than normal Bible paper, and it has more of an opaque, almost beige appearance to it.  The text is a decent size for reading, and verse numbers are out to the left of the text in a distinct red font.  It also contains one ribbon bookmark.

The biggest difference is that after each psalm  there is now a devotion to help guide the reader into a time of reflection and prayer as they read the psalms.  The few that I read seemed very theologically sound (which I would expect from Crossway) and life applicable.

psalter 4

psalter 5

psalter 6

The copy I received came in a hardshell slipcase.  I love having slipcases like this as it helps protect the Bible itself when it is on the shelf.

psalter 1 (50)

psalter 2

The psalter is a TruTone portfolio design, which is a beautiful design for a Bible, in my opinion.

psalter 3

If you are looking for a standalone psalter that offers some guidance to help move the ancient prayers into a modern way of applying them, this is certainly the psalter to consider.

*Note: I received a complimentary copy of this psalter from Crossway in exchange for my honest review.  

Book Review – “Reading the Bible Supernaturally” by John Piper

bible supernaturally

I had previously reviewed John Piper’s A Peculiar Glory, and while it was good, it wasn’t my favorite book by Piper.  His newest title, Reading the Bible Supernaturally, sounded better, and I am thankful for Crossway for providing me a copy to review.

I am always looking for anything that will help me read the Bible better and apply it to my life more.  Piper’s book sounded like a good candidate, and indeed it was!  Piper helps the reader understand why it is so important to read Scripture, what the ultimate goal of our reading should be, and how to be better readers.

The book is divided into three parts.  Part 1 is “The Ultimate Goal of Reading the Bible,” part 2 is “The Supernatural Act of Reading the Bible,” and Part 3 is “The Natural Act of Reading the Bible Supernaturally.”

The first part is the foundation for the other two.  He begins by giving a brief overview of the ideas contained in the previous book, A Peculiar Glory.  This serves to either refresh one’s memory if they had previously read the book (which was my case) or to provide an overview to those who hadn’t so that they would know where Piper is coming from.

After providing this brief overview, Piper begins to lay out the ultimate goal in Bible reading.  Piper defines it this way: “Our ultimate goal in reading the Bible is that God’s infinite worth and beauty would be exalted in the everlasting, white-hot worship of the blood-bought bride of Christ from every people, language, tribe, and nation.” (p. 41)  I like that summary very much, and the rest of part 1 unpacks this proposal in great detail, taking it step by step as Piper lays out his argument for why we should accept his proposal that this is the ultimate goal in Bible reading.

In part 2, Piper emphasizes that apart from the Spirit of God working in our lives to open our eyes to God’s word, we would never be able to receive anything from Scripture as we read it.  He emphasizes that this is not because of any natural lack in ourselves and our ability to read.  Rather, our fallen nature prevents us from seeing God in the Bible, until the Holy Spirit does a work in us to open our eyes.  There is a definite Calvinistic slant here, but overall I don’t think it is anything that most people would disagree with, whether they identify as Calvinists or not.

Part 3 begins to focus on what things we can do as we read the Bible to be sure we are understanding what is written.  Some of the aspects we need to cultivate, according to Piper, are humility, prayer, faith in God’s promises, learning to identify the meaning of the authors, and active reading by asking questions of terms, phrases, propositions, and paradoxes.

Part of the way that Piper says we can read better is by using a method called arcing, and he provides an appendix that very briefly explains and demonstrates how arcing works. He also mentions that there is a Web site that is more interactive to help understand the concept.  I have to admit that I would need something more interactive, as the appendix did not help me visualize how this would work that well.  It may be enough for some people, however.

The back of the book also has a general index and scripture index.

As with many of Piper’s books, Reading the Bible Supernaturally will probably take more than one reading to really grasp some of what he argues for.  But it is a book that is definitely worth more than one reading.  I have to say that it also has caused me to want to go back and reread A Peculiar Glory to try to put the ideas from the two books together into one coherent whole.  I believe that Piper may be working on a third book in this series, and after reading the second book, I cannot wait to see where he goes next.

If you are looking for something to ignite a spark in you for searching the Scriptures, Reading the Bible Supernaturally is one book I would definitely consider picking up.

*Note: I received a complimentary copy of the book from the publisher in exchange for my honest review.

Book Review – “God at War” by Gregory A. Boyd

god at war

I want to begin by saying that I don’t think any review I could write would do this book justice.  I will inevitably either give too little or too much information, and I run the risk of misrepresenting what the author is arguing.  But I will do my best to give my thoughts clearly and fairly.

For years, I have been wanting to read God at War: The Bible & Spiritual Conflict by Gregory A. Boyd.  InterVarsity Press agreed to send me a copy.  I am thankful they did, and they have been very patient with me, as this book has taken me quite a while to read, and I still have the companion book to work through.

God at War is no easy or light read.  The book is 414 pages long, including the text, notes, a selected bibliography, and author/subject index, and a Scripture index.  I read through all of the text (293 pages) and notes (101 pages!), and flipping back and forth took me a while.

Boyd’s book is a good and challenging read.  In the book, Boyd is attempting to offer an explanation of theodicy that he feels does a better job of explaining the problem of evil than the traditional (Augustinian) view of theodicy.  To do so, Boyd argues that the Bible contains a warfare view of creation.  That is, there is a war raging between God and Satan (and his forces of evil), and this warfare is the overarching worldview through which we should think.  As a result, we should not be surprised that bad things happen to good people; rather, we should expect them, as we would expect bad things to happen during a physical war.

This requires us to rethink traditional explanations of how God and evil can coexist.  The traditional view sees God as being in sovereign control of everything that occurs, even the evil things that Satan and people may do.  A philosophical result of this view, according to Boyd, is that we must ultimately claim that everything that happens is, in some sense, according to God’s will and part of His good plan, even evil things.  To Boyd, this ultimately makes God responsible for both good and evil.

According to the warfare view that Boyd espouses in the book, bad things happen not as part of God’s overall will, but against God’s will as a result of free creatures (both demonic and human) choosing to do evil.  As such, there are truly things happening that are pointless.  Still, God is so good that He will ultimately bring good out of these things, though Boyd is clear that those things didn’t happen in order to bring about that good; rather, God causes good from inherently evil things that happen.

These claims are very different from what many are used to hearing, and they require a lot of explanation to back them up.  That is the focus of this book.

In God at War, Boyd focuses on understanding evil and how it works with God only as a supplement to arguing for his warfare understanding of the Bible.  He holds off on the explanations of how evil exists in a universe created by a good God for his follow-up book, Satan and the Problem of Evil.

The first part of this book focuses on the warfare view of the Old Testament, while the second part focuses on the warfare view of the New Testament.  I cannot possibly go over everything Boyd discusses in these parts, but I will offer a brief overview.

In the first part, Boyd works through the Old Testament, showing that from the beginning of Creation, there is an idea of warfare as God establishes order from chaos.  He moves on to show how this warfare view works its way out throughout the entire Old Testament, culminating in an understanding of Satan.

In the second part, Boyd turns his attention to the New Testament, arguing that Jesus’ coming on the scene is the beginning of an invasion, for lack of a better word, of enemy territory.  He walks readers through seeing Jesus’ mission being one of overpowering the enemy and taking back the world he has stolen, and Jesus demonstrates this through exorcisms and healings, both of which are direct confrontations with Satan’s minions and activities.  From there, Boyd focuses on the cross and resurrection as being in line most strongly with the Christus Victor view, over and above the penal substitutionary atonement view.  What I like is that Boyd does not set these views against one another, but orders them so that God’s redeeming people is a subset of His restoring creation by giving it back to Jesus as king rather than having forgiveness of sins being the main focus.  He ends by showing how the idea that we are at war (in the already/not yet state of affairs where Satan has been shown to be defeated, though not ultimately defeated yet) continues through the epistles and Revelation.  We see this in the fact that we are called soldiers who need to fight the good fight and put on the full armor of God while being aware of the devil’s schemes since he prowls around like a roaring lion seeking someone to devour, whom we need to resist as we stand fast, among other statements.  (I think I fit enough Biblical references in that abnormally long sentence.)

I will say that after reading the book, I can clearly see a clear warfare view in the entire Bible.  Whether that is because I have just finished the book, so it is in the forefront of my thoughts or because it is that clearly present has yet to be determined.  Boyd, however, certainly accomplishes what he set out to do: Show that the idea of warfare runs throughout the entire Bible as the theme that ties it all together.

I am certainly anxious to read his follow-up book now to see how this all works out in theory and practice.

The largest concern I have is with Boyd’s Open Theistic view.  It is clear that Boyd rests his arguments in this understanding of God’s sovereignty and knowledge, though I believe he made a statement that one could see a warfare view in Scripture without holding to Open Theism specifically.  I am still reading for and against Open Theism as contrasted with more traditional views of God’s knowledge and sovereignty, and I am not convinced that Open Theism is the best view.  Readers will want to be aware that Boyd is working out of that Scriptural understanding as they read through this book.

All in all, this is definitely a book I would recommend to those who are interested in spiritual warfare, a warfare view of Scripture, or in understanding theodicy in a deeper way.  Whether you walk away from the book convinced or not, I don’t think you will find a better explanation of a warfare view of Scripture than Boyd presents; at least, I cannot picture how there could be a more thorough one.  (Chapter 1 alone has 88 endnotes!)  You will not regret reading this book.

*Note: I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher in exchange for my honest review.

Let Us Value God’s Word!

holding bible

I received a Voice of the Martyrs magazine the other day that focused on smuggling Bibles into various countries.  There were several articles throughout describing some of the hardships and lengths people have to go to just to get a copy of the Bible into people’s hands (and hearts).

I couldn’t help but think, as I was reading the article, about how blessed many of us are when it comes to access to the Bible.  Right now, I can think of at least seven different English translations of the Bible sitting on my shelves (not including two updates of two of them that are slightly different).  I have some of those translations in different editions of study Bibles, increasing the number of Bibles I have access to.  In addition, I have two different audio Bibles in my room (plus two in the car).  If I need more insight, I can pull out my laptop, iPad, or phone and immediately access probably another 20 or so English translations there.  Again, let me say, most of us are blessed beyond measure!  Some may call it an embarrassment of riches.

Yet, at the same time, it seems that this blessing has also led us to be somewhat . . . well . . . spoiled, ungrateful, and somewhat desensitized to just what a treasure we have.  I don’t mean for that to sound harsh, but it struck me hard today.  The magazine articles, coupled with a video I have seen a few times now of people literally weeping, hugging, and kissing their Bibles when they finally received copies in their own language, really hit me and made me think about their perspective on having Scripture they can read versus ours.

Let me speak for myself.  I truly don’t feel I memorize, read, and pray over the word like I should.  There is no sense of urgency, I suppose, because I know that it is always there.  I can pick it up and read it any time, so there’s no pressure to read it right now.  Especially after a hard day’s work, I just want to relax and watch TV, mindlessly scroll down the unending social feed that is Facebook, or play a game.  When I do feel like reading, for some odd reason, I will reach for other Christian books about the Bible, but not necessarily reach for the Bible itself.  (That, too, is another blessing we take for granted, but I will focus on just the word itself in this blog post.)

Maybe if we lost access to the Bible we would actually respect it and value it more.  Maybe that is what it will take to cause us to yearn for the word of God more than anything else.  Maybe if access to the Bible is restricted, our hearts and spirits will finally be stirred to realize how much we need it.  Maybe then we would hug our Bibles, read them until they fall apart, and memorize and recite Scripture more than our favorite songs (even Christian ones).

Or maybe, just maybe, we can learn from seeing how other Christians who are not as fortunate (part of me wants to put quotes around that word) as we are treat their Bibles and access to the living and powerful word of God.  Maybe we can realize the blessing we have been given without having it taken away, and we can begin to treat our Bibles as the gifts they truly are.  Maybe we can pray for ourselves and encourage one another to hunger and thirst for God’s voice in His written word as much as we hunger for food and thirst for water.  Maybe we can really believe that we do not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds from the mouth of God (Matthew 4).  Maybe we can let the word of Christ dwell in us richly (Colossians).  (Reread that last sentence a few times, focusing on the words “dwell” and “richly.”) Maybe we will hit a point where we carry our Bibles as lovingly as if we were carrying the most expensive treasure on Earth.  Maybe we will learn to hug our Bibles as we pray; to shed tears over them every time we open the pages and realize the lengths that people have gone to so that we can have access to the word of God.  Maybe we will learn to reach for our Bibles (in whatever format) in our spare moments rather than for games and social media, meeting with God as often as possible and learning from Him.  Maybe we will start hiding God’s word in our heart more, memorizing as if our lives depend on it because maybe, in a way, they do.

Maybe, just maybe.

“God, forgive us for taking your word for granted.  Forgive us for failing to see the treasure we have in front of us.  Forgive us for treating your word as an accessory to be used at suitable times rather than as your very words to us that we need to live.  Please help us to love your word more.  Help us to hunger and thirst for it.  Let us reach a point where nothing else can satisfy us.  Thank you, Lord, for giving us this blessing.  Let us treasure it for the riches contained in it.  In Jesus’ name.  Amen.”

Book Review – “The Lost World of Genesis One” by John H. Walton

lost-world-genesis

As someone still studying various issues related to science, the Scripture, and how to interpret them both, I have been reading books by authors on various perspectives.  One recent author who has gained some attention is John H. Walton.  He has written a few books now trying to understand Genesis in its ancient context.  The Lost World of Genesis One starts, quite literally, “In the beginning.”

The subtitle of the book is “Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate.”  Walton’s view is that we must understand the ancient context of cosmology and creation origin stories in order to better understand ancient thought on the issue of origins and creation.  By understanding the ancient mindset, we can then better understand Genesis 1 and what it is trying to say.

The layout of the book has Walton presenting 18 propositions to help us understand his arguments.  These include propositions such as “Genesis 1 Is Ancient Cosmology,” “Ancient Cosmology Is Function Oriented,” “The Cosmos Is a Temple,” and “The Seven Days of Genesis 1 Do Not Concern Material Origins.”

From here on out, please excuse any mistakes in my understanding or representation of Walton and his arguments.  The views he presents are very new to me, and I may not be understanding him perfectly.  If so, I fully accept any mistakes on my part.

I was raised understanding the Genesis creation account as explaining “how and when things were created.”  This would essentially be a material origin view.  Walton’s argument is that Genesis is not concerned with material origin (when and how things came into being).  Rather, he believes that Genesis is concerned with functional origin (why things came into being).

As a result, Walton argues that science may present one understanding of how things came about, with Scripture providing the importance of the creation.  This, of course, results in allowing science and Scripture to not be at odds with one another, unless science is saying God is not involved at all.  While Walton argues that his goal is not to defend evolution or any scientific views in particular, one cannot help but wonder if that may not be at least an underlying desire, if not explicitly discussed.  I suppose that crosses into judging motives, however, and we do have to be careful about doing that.

Walton’s central argument is that the Earth is viewed in Scripture as God’s cosmic temple, and that the creation account deals with the establishing, filling, and functioning of that temple.  It is, to say the least, a novel view compared to many I have read.  I cannot, at this point, say whether I agree with him or not, as I still have to think through many issues related to his perspective.

Perhaps the most interesting part of his book was his last proposition that public science education should be neutral regarding purpose.  It almost began to feel a little like the old “non-overlapping magisteria” arguments presented elsewhere.  Science and faith are in different fields, and the two have no contribution to each other.  I’m not sure I can fully agree with that perspective.  Primarily, I would argue that there is no such thing as total neutrality; one’s worldview will always at least partially color one’s perspective, and I’m not convinced we can escape that, although we can try to account for it and minimize it.  At the same time, his view, if adopted, could solve some issues in teaching science as a Christian in a public arena.  It would also have to apply both ways, so atheists could not push a purely materialistic view of science anymore than Christians could push a supernatural one.

Despite Walton’s claims, I think one would be hard-pressed to understand how Walton is not arguing ultimately for evolution, however.  In one proposition, he argues how other theories of Genesis and science either go too far or not far enough.  In this chapter, he argues against Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, Literary Framework Hypothesis, and forms of the Gap Theory.  He also seems to explain that since Intelligent Design is concerned primarily with purpose, it has no place in public education of scientific ideas.   At least from my studies, I cannot figure out what would be left, short of some view of Evolutionary Creationism.

Granted, Walton would argue that I am asking the wrong question.  His emphasis is that the Genesis account is not trying to discuss science, as we think of it, since it deals with material origins.  But if all the above views are thrown out, I cannot see any view left other than the current standard evolutionary view of material origins, as far as science is concerned.

Also in his defense, Walton explains that he is concerned primarily with the best way of understanding Genesis 1, regardless of what science currently says.  As a result, his view of Genesis would not change, even if our scientific understanding of how things developed does change.  This provides some sense of solidarity on understanding Genesis that does not require one to argue that science is wrong in what it says, as the two are not even addressing the same questions.

If Walton is right regarding how to understand Genesis 1, it would be a huge relief to many, as it would allow them to let science speak on its own, and however one interprets Genesis it would have no bearing on our pursuit of scientific understanding.  I admit that is an attractive thought.  At this point, however, I am not sure if it stands up to total scrutiny yet.  I admit, I am new to both understanding science and trying to look deeper into the creation account in Genesis, so I am not able to provide an in-depth critique one way or another beyond my thoughts listed here.

I am in no way saying Walton is wrong; for all I know, he is spot on.  The view is so novel to me, however, that I am struggling to reconcile it with the interpretations I was raised with.

If you are a student of the science/religion questions, and if you like trying to see if we can “harmonize” (for lack of a better term) the two and how best to do it, then The Lost World of Genesis One (as well as the follow-up The Lost World of Adam and Eve) are great books to add to your list of books to study.

*Note: I received a complimentary copy of the book from InterVarsity Press in exchange for my honest review.