A Reasonable Faith?

The following probabilities are taken from Peter Stoner in Science Speaks (Moody Press, 1963) to show that coincidence is ruled out by the science of probability.

Stoner states that by using the modern science of probability in reference to eight prophecies, "we find that the chance that any one man might have lived down to the present time and fulfilled all eight prophecies is 1 in 1017."  (Please pardon the format.  Blogger will not support superscript).  That would be 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000. 

In order to help us comprehend this staggering probability, Stoner illustrates it by supposing that "we take 1017 silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas.  They will cover the state two feet deep.  "Now mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly, all over the state.  Blindfold a man and tell him that he can travel as far as he wishes, but he must pick up one silver dollar and say that this is the right one.  What chance would he have of getting  the right one?  Just the same chance that the prophets would have had of writing these eight prophecies and having them all come true in any one man."

Stoner considers 48 prophecies and says, "we find the chance that any one man fulfilled all 48 prophecies to be 1 in 10157,  that is, 1 in 

100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

The estimated number of electrons in the universe is around 1079.  It should be quite evident that Jesus did not fulfill the prophecies by accident.  

The Reader's Digest Condensed Version of the Bible

You've got to be kidding, right? A condensed version of the Bible??? I know, I know, there's something about the whole concept that just doesn't sit well with me. I'm wondering what "jot's and tittle's" are missing.

A conversation on another blog concerning modern translations of the bible led to my being chastised by "Peggy" for simply assuming this whole condensing thing was a bad idea without first checking it out. I responded by stating that I would secure a copy of the RDCV ASAP and offer up my thoughts. Consider this a first installment on my opinions.

I asked my masterful ministry assistant to secure a copy for me from a used book seller. Expecting a cheap paperback I was pleasantly surprised by what she procured. Pictured above is the beautiful edition that is now part of my collection.

The edition is worth the $7 (plus shipping and handling) paid for the artwork alone. (Watch Me Paint Carol, I immediately thought of you and how nice it would be to sit down and let you walk me through this art gallery!) My life has already been enriched by this particular volume and I have a greater appreciation for religious art (Isn't all art religious? Another topic for another day). Each book has a brief introduction in the tradition of most study bibles out there. However, these introductions are graced with dynamic original etchings. You will notice in the right hand margin a smaller picture which is a notable piece of artwork that has a relationship to the adjacent text. Almost every page has one or more of these contributions. This volume is a treasure trove of art history. Below is a sample of one of three full color sections. One section focuses on artwork inspired by the Old Testament, another on the New Testament, and the third offers some photos of the Holy Land. As I said, a bonanza of art history and a beautiful edition.


I could go on and on about the trimmings but I agreed to review the main course, the Scripture. Here are some initial observations. The introduction by Bruce Metzger, attempts to define the difference between a condensation and an abridgment and states, rather emphatically, that this (the RDCV) is not an abridged version. Metzger then goes on to describe how this version is approximately 40% shorter than its traditional counterparts through the condensation methods "perfected" by Reader's Digest through the years. Interestingly, a brief trip to your local dictionary reveals little, if any, difference between "condense" and "abridge". If you're having difficulty hearing my skepticism through these typed words let me say it clearly, I'm skeptical.

After reading the first three books (Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus) I would call this an abridged version rather than a condensed version. Reading comparatively (RDCV side by side with my ESV) through Genesis sealed that observation for me. They have preserved the critical story line while sacrificing some marvelous stories that attend and illuminate the central story. I understand that something had to go in order to "condense" it and I am intensely interested about the process of elimination that was used in order to achieve this. By what criteria did a particular section get pink slipped? (There's a fun Bible Study idea for you...if you were "condensing" the Bible what would you leave out?).

Some things I like. I really like no chapter and verse references. (Footnote, Stephen Langton is reputed to have been the first to put the chapter divisions into a Vulgate edition of the Bible, in 1205. They were then inserted into Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in the 1400's . Robert Estienne (Robert Stephanus) was the first to number the verses within each chapter, his verse numbers entering printed editions in 1551 (New Testament) and 1571 (Hebrew Bible)) It is nice to read through a text without artificial divisions. I think this will make an even greater difference in reading the epistles (check back later).

As one who is acquainted with the general sweep of the scriptural story I like the job the editors have done of preserving the central story. It was nice to "get the point" of Leviticus without getting bogged down in the repetitive ritual instructions. (OK, by show of hands, how many of you have read every word of Leviticus without skimming?) That said, there is still a big part of me that cringes at portions of this lying on the cutting floor somewhere. Maybe I prefer to be my own editor...

I'm still wrestling with whether or not I can, in good conscience, recommend the RDCV to others. Maybe if it didn't proclaim itself as the BIBLE I would be a little more at ease with it. (But what would you call it?)

I will be back with other observations along the way. Today I'm reading Numbers and Deuteronomy.

A Worthy Word about the WORD

"The Bible is the record of those divine breakthroughs into human history. 'God's search for man,' it is described, rather than our search for God. And its accents are considered a key for discerning the continuing divine activity in the present. Unlike most religious literature, it is not chiefly a collection of noble sayings, but a drumroll of events, people, struggles, great and terrible, of frailty, doubts, and heroism, of the ultimate might of right. Scripture isn't meant as scientific exposition or as mere history. It is 'salvation history,' a universal spiritual drama of an overarching compassion and concern for human integrity, of an unwavering love that seeks an answering affirmation, It is a vivid, sometimes parabolic account of God's persistent, unrelenting quest for us and our stumbling, often faithless response." From The Untamed God by George Cornell

A Few Words about the Word of God

Ran across this in preparation for Sunday morning (planning to use it by the way) and thought it might be worth posting for others to enjoy. If anyone knows the original source I would love to have that information. For now it will be credited to that great author, A. Nony Mous.

"The Bible contains the mind of God, the state of man, the way of salvation, the doom of sinners and the happiness of believers.

Its doctrines are holy, its precepts are binding, its histories are true, and its decisions are immutable.

Read it to be wise.
Believe it to be saved.
Practice it to be holy.

It contains light to direct you, food to support you, and comfort to cheer you. It is the traveler's map, the pilgrim's staff, the pilot's compass, the soldier's sword, and the Christian's character. Here paradise is restored, Heaven opened and the gates of hell disclosed.

Christ is its grand subject, our good the design, and glory of God its end.

It should fill the memory, rule the heart, and guide the feet. Read it slowly, frequently and prayerfully.

It is a mine of wealth, a paradise of glory, and a river of pleasure.

It is given you in life, will be opened at the judgment, and remembered forever.

It involves the highest responsibility, will reward the greatest labor, and will condemn all who trifle with its sacred contents."

Can the Bible Be Trusted (video)

Here's an interesting and informative video short that speaks to the reliability of scripture. Enjoy!

Unshakable Word

Can the Bible Be Trusted (part B)

Point first, there is no such thing as a perfect translation. (See my previous post for more on this). With this in mind we can turn to the process of translation. I have been asked why a committee of men and/or women (depending on what translation you are considering) did this work. The simple answer to this is that a committee of peers, working together, provide a natural check and balance system to the work of translation. Thus, rather than getting one person's thinking on how a particular phrase or word should be translated the committee works together to come to the best way to say what is at hand in accordance with the goals of the translation.

So why a committee? It's much like receiving a serious diagnosis from one doctor. You could accept his interpretation of the facts but you would be wise to seek a second opinion. After receiving a second opinion you could then proceed with confidence knowing that two knowledgeable, trained physicians agreed on the nature and treatment of your ailment (assuming they agreed). In extreme cases you might even seek a 3rd or 4th opinion. This in no way impairs the truth of your diagnosis, in fact, just the opposite is true. Having additional eyes look at your particular case assures you of getting a clearer and more accurate picture of what you are facing. What one man may have missed another man may notice. What one may think unimportant, another may have experience or information that highlights its importance. I trust you are able to make the leap from the medical example to the process of translation.

Rather than degrade the reliability of scripture, translation by committee enhances the reliability of the work that is done. Are there good translations? Absolutely. Are there some that are not so good? Again, absolutely (note especially the New World Translation - translated to suit one particular theological view point).

I will address the different translations which are available in my next post and discuss the difference in approach to translations.

Can The Bible Be Trusted?

This will be the first post in a series that will address the reliability of scripture. I have an enjoyable, civil, and (hopefully) ongoing conversation with another blogger that has precipitated this thread. Not much original thought to add to the already copious amount of material on this topic but a few initial observations that I regularly share with my church family.

Point first, there is no such thing as a "perfect" translation. All of you "KJV only" folks please save your hate mail. Anyone who has ever done any language study knows that there are some words in different languages that will simply not translate. There are simply no equivalent words. What's a translator to do in such a situation? They try and find an equivalent way to say it. For example, in John 3:7 (find it for yourself to get the full context) Jesus tells Nicodemus, "Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again." (ESV). "Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'" (NASB) "You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.'" (NIV) "Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again." (KJV). "So don't be so surprised when I tell you that you have to be 'born from above' - out of this world, so to speak." (The Message). Five translations - all good, but all fall short of communicating what is present in the Greek (original language).

Two things here. "Do not marvel..." is trying to get at the Ingressive Aorist Tense. Could literally translate it as, "Don't start marveling..." We just don't have the ingressive Aorist in English. Second, unless you have a good translation with solid textual notes you will miss the fact that the second "you" is plural ("ya'll" in southern speak). So Jesus is addressing not only Nicodemus but all who are like him.

Sorry this got technical but it lays the groundwork for a lot of the other discussion to follow. Let me clearly say it again in case you got lost along the way. There is no such thing as a "perfect" translation. There are, however, a number of very good and very reliable translations available. Your best bet is to learn Greek, but since most of us won't do that we have to rely on good translations.