From Joe Weaks:

Tags: Accordance, Logos

Tomorrow, the iPhone 3G S will be released, essentially the third itteration of Apple’s iPhone in two years. I had the first generation iPhone. I stood in line outside of an AT&T store on the day it was released, not out of impatience, but for the sheer fun of it. I even literally got the t-shirt (you can see it here). I had no plans to buy the second iPhone, the iPhone 3G. Yes, it had GPS built in which the first iPhone did not have, and it had faster internet connections when away from WiFi, but that wasn’t reason enough for me to upgrade.

However, I have an iPhone 3G anyway. A few months ago, a friend of mine (you know who you are) needed my first generation iPhone so that he could hack it to run on TMobile (evidently, you can hack the first generation phones to run on other carriers, but not later models). So, I told him if he bought me the iPhone 3G, he could have my first generation iPhone. Done.

Now, I don’t plan to buy the 3G S any more than I intended to upgrade to the 3G. However, like last time, if someone wants my current one and wants to buy me the new one, I’m not going to refuse that offer. The advantage of the new phone? Well, it has a better camera, video capture, digital compass, voice control, a faster processor and more RAM. Really, this is a more compelling upgrade than the previous one, but not compelling enough to make me go out and spend the money for the new one.

In fact, my current iPhone, the iPhone 3G is going to remain on the market at a reduced price of $99. That says a lot for the fact that it still has a lot of life in it.

Plus, Apple had done something that is not typical on most smart phones--they’ve allowed the user of previous phones to upgrade to the new features of an updated OS. Yesterday, iPhone 3.0 firmware was released, and I updated both Kathy’s first generation iPhone and my 3G iPhone to the 3.0 software. There are lots of new features, and you can see most of them at this link. There really are some compelling features in the update, including some that should have been there from the beginning (copy, cut & paste for instance), so I get a new iPhone experience without buying the new iPhone.

Another friend of mine emailed me a few days ago. He had noticed the reduced price on the current iPhone to $99. He said, “Is there any reason to get the new iPhone, as opposed to the old one? They put the old one on sale for $99.00.” I explained to him the differences I mentioned above and suggested the current $99 3G is just fine.

He replied, “If you were buying the iPhone for the first time, which one would you buy?”

My answer? “The new one. I never buy last generation.”

Two years ago, I wrote about the convergence of technologies brought by the iPhone. It has not been all that long ago (2003 to be exact--before buying a Palm Treo) that I carried three devices: a Palm PDA, a cell phone, and an iPod. The Treo combined two of those, but the iPhone combined all three.

I began carrying around a PDA device in 1998. That year I bought a Palm Pilot Professional with 1 MB of RAM. This was back in the day that Palm PDAs still has “US Robotics” on the case. Over the years I had a series of Palm PDAs (my favorite being the Palm V) before moving to the iPhone.

I have never stopped using a PDA in one form or another. It is really the most valuable aspect of my iPhone. In the old days I had to physically sync my data with my PDA using a cable between the PDA and my computer--something was a daily task performed religiously. In spite of all the problems with the release of MobileMe last year, and despite the fact that the service is somewhat overpriced, I have to admit that it has really served me well. I don’t have to physically sync my iPhone to my computer to keep calendars and contacts the same. It’s done wirelessly, sometimes seemingly instantaneously. Not only that, but MobileMe keeps my MacBook Pro and my desktop G5 in sync as well. I can still remember years ago, using a Palm device as a means to sync two separate computers.



And yet, it’s still not an all-perfect world. The new iPhone 3.0 firmware released yesterday finally brought copy, cut, & paste as well as global searching to the iPhone. To its credit, I had both of these on my Palm Pro in 1998. Plus, I’m still not convinced that a finger is always superior to a stylus. The iPhone makes for a slick demo when you show someone how easy it is to maneuver with just the swipe of a finger. But occasionally, an optional stylus would allow for movements needing a bit more precision.

As the iPhone continues to improve, here are three things I hope will be implemented in the future. The fact that my list has grown much shorter gives me great hope.

1. Sync my To Do List! iCal on the Mac comes with a To Do list feature. I’ve grown to use it pretty regularly to remind me of the things I need to get done during the day or in days to come. But there’s not an equivalent app on the iPhone! This is in spite of the fact that it’s a pretty standard feature on other smart phones and was on my Palm over a decade ago! Right now I use Appigo’s ToDo app on the iPhone. I may write a separate review later. It is pretty good, but there are some drawbacks. I don’t understand why a To Do app wasn’t on the iPhone from the very first day.
2. Pocket Quicken. I’ve been using Quicken on my Mac since 2002 and I’ve never even been one penny off when I reconcile my accounts--not once in seven years! I swear by it. On my Palm Tungsten T and then my Palm Treo 600, I had Pocket Quicken. I could enter transactions from my checking account/debit card during the day and sync them to desktop Quicken when I got home. This may very well what I miss most from my Palm days. Now I have to tuck receipts into my shirt pocket during the day and keep myself disciplined about entering them into Quicken as soon as I can. LandWare, the makers of Pocket Quicken, never say they aren’t going to make an iPhone version; they merely say they aren’t planning anything at the present. Yes, I know that Intuit offers an online version of Quicken that has an iPhone friendly screen. However, the online version cannot import desktop Quicken files. I’ve got too much information in here to start over.
3. I know this will sound extra geeky, but I’d really like to have a foldout bluetooth keyboard for my iPhone. Years ago, I had the Stowaway Portable Keyboard that I used with my Palm III. I still remember the first day I had it, unfolding it in front of an individual who worked on computers for a living. He said, “Man, you just out-geeked me.” Yes, it often looked to some as being over the top, but it was so handy when needing to simply use something less than a laptop for hammering out text for longer than 30 seconds. Just the other night, I was at church taking minutes in a business meeting. I was using my 15” MacBook Pro which is what I’m writing this on. The back of the screen was pinched up against the seat in front of me. My laptop, handy as it is, was too much. I needed something smaller. I’ve thought about getting a cheap netbook and hacking it with OS X, but that’s hard to justify, too. I really just need a keyboard for my iPhone--especially since Documents to Go was finally released this week for the iPhone (another app I had for years on the Palm platform).

Some days I actually miss my Palm. But I also like the convergence of devices that the iPhone represents. So, I’ll be patient. With some things, you just can’t go back. And in truth, we’re all so spoiled regardless in the big picture.

Tags: iPhone, Apple

Yesterday, via Twitter, I received confirmation from Keith Williams, Bible editor at Tyndale House, that the upcoming Mosaic Bible will have wide margins (of some sort). Currently, no printing of the second edition (2004, 2007) NLT Bible has any significant room for personal notetaking. The first edition (1996) NLT Bible was available in a printing known as the Notetaker’s Bible, which--in my opinion--had the best layout for making personal notes of any Bible I’ve ever seen. Unfortunately, it was a weak seller (it didn’t have the advantage of a strong NLT blogosphere base at the time, no doubt) and after going out of print, it was never re-released in the second edition NLT.

In the NLT Mosaic, slated to be released this Fall, the NLT biblical text will be intermingled with full-color art and devotional content. From what Williams said publicly on Twitter, biblical text will have a 0.82” margin on the outside of the page, 0.55” top and bottom, but disappointingly, the inner margin will only have what he calls a “standard” width.

Why do I use the word disappointingly? What’s the problem with this? Well, it has to do with the fact that the Mosaic Bible contains a two-column text for biblical content. Now, I’m not opposed to a two-column wide margin for taking notes. However, as I’ve noted many times here on This Lamp in regard to Bibles suitable for notetaking, publishers often make the mistake of giving the outer column ample space while neglecting the space around the inner column; that is, the space next to the binding.

This runs contrary to the way I’ve experienced writing personal notes in Bibles as well as what I’ve observed in the practice of others. Most of us who write notes in the margins of the Bible need these notes to be in close, if not immediate, proximity to the text upon which we’re commenting. Personal notes are not like the notes in a study Bible which can all be at the bottom. The note-taker does not want to have to create a whole new reference system to connect his or her personal notes to the biblical text.

There is still some hope for a true wide-margin NLT Bible, however. This Fall, Cambridge is going to release a high end Pitt Minion edition of the New Living Translation. In the past, Cambridge has often released a wide-margin edition of a new Bible at some point after initial publication. And Cambridge tends to give the inner margin proper space for taking notes, so there’s lots to be hopeful for here.

I’ve suggested repeatedly that although well-designed, wide-margin Bibles (in any translation) may never become huge sellers, they are used by individuals with great influence by teachers and pastors. These individuals, often referred to as “gatekeepers,” usually have influence over what translations members of a study group or congregation will buy. There’s comfort in reading along in the same translation as the one that someone preaching or teaching is using. So while individuals listening to someone using a wide margin Bible in a particular translation may not run out and buy the same wide-margin edition themselves, they will instead be more likely to buy that same translation in an edition more to their own suiting. Currently, I feel that only Crossway Publishers truly understands this influence as evidenced in their offering of numerous well-designed, wide-margin editions of the ESV.

In spite of my initial excitement and then hesitancy regarding the layout of the upcoming NLT Mosaic Bible, I’m still looking forward to its release. I imagine that it will have much to offer, and at this time any space for personal notes is better than none. Further, I welcome any significant and serious addition to the current offerings of NLT Bibles.

From Tyndale House’s webpage for the Mosaic Bible:

Encounter Christ on every continent and in every century of Christian History.?A new genre of Bible—a weekly meditation Bible—Holy Bible: Mosaic is an invitation to experience Christ both in His word and in the responses of his people. Each week, as you reflect on guided Scripture readings aligned with the church seasons, you will receive a wealth of insight from historical and contemporary writings. Full-color artwork will engage the soul; quotes, hymns, prayers, and poems enhance the rich devotional experience. Also includes a Dictionary/Concordance, NLT word study system with Hebrew/ Greek dictionary. A beautiful layout of art and devotional content, and an online community and content (coming Fall 2009) will extend the experience.

Back Cover Copy
On our own we are little more than bits of stone and glass . . .
. . . Together we are the Body of Christ.

A living mosaic of believers, spanning the centuries and crossing the globe. This mosaic is larger than all of us, yet when we claim the name of Christ, we add our bits to help complete the picture.

Join us on a journey of transforming discovery. Explore a few of the pieces of the picture with us.

Holy Bible: Mosaic is unlike any Bible that you have held before. It is an invitation to encounter Christ both through his word and in the responses of his people. Each week as you read and reflect on God’s Word through guided Scripture readings appropriate to the church seasons, you will also encounter a wealth of insight from the church, including:
Full-color artwork that will engage your soul
Contemporary and historical writings
Prayers, hymns, and poems for devotional reflection
Space for your response to God’s promptings
Opportunity to add your responses to the community at _______________
Add your tile to the mosaic.

---

Currently, there are plans for both a hardcopy and “LeatherLike” (Antique Brown) editions of the Mosaic NLT. As of this writing, the Amazon page for the Leatherlike edition is incorrectly listed as hardcover.

Tags: NLT

Sunday, I received my new copy of Biblical Illustrator Plus CDROM. I’ve been using Biblical Illustrator for years to help me prepare for the Bible studies I teach on Sunday morning. BI contains background articles that go along with the two main Sunday School curricula used in most Southern Baptist churches. BI is completely separate from the regular teacher’s material, but honestly I value it more. Every quarterly issue contains around 25 articles that offer background information for the biblical texts covered in our studies. The information is usually more detailed than what is offered in the average commentary, but short enough to be digested in one sitting. A working knowledge of biblical languages is not required.

G. B. Howell Jr. is editor of BI. In this newest issue, he is interviewed regarding the role he has played over the past six years. In that interview, he offers a very good description of what BI has to offer:

We continue to offer articles on biblical archaeology, geography, history, people, Greek and Hebrew word studies, and some theology. Every issue has a book review that introduces a new resource to our readers. And we offer a CenterSpread that is art intensive but has an economy of words. ... We have begun offering, though, sidebar boxes with self-contained information (see “St. Catherine’s Monastery,” p. 9). We added a twopage article that addresses some aspect of biblical archaeology, either a find or a site of significance.

The cover of the Summer 2009 issue features a bronze mask of a maenad or female follower of the wine-god Bacchus (Roman, 1st cent. A.D.). In addition to the curricula-related articles, this issue offers a review of Paul Barnett’s book, Paul: Missionary of Jesus. The archaeological article by Joe Cathey focuses on the City of David. The center spread covers the geography of ancient Galatia.

I teach the Explore the Bible curriculum which covers Galatians and James for the months of June - August. Many of the articles that you will see in the table below relate to these books of the Bible. Other articles offer background information for the Bible Studies for Life and MasterWork curricula. Below are the new articles in the current issue of BI:

Jerry Batson	Anointing in the Early Church	James 5
Joseph Beckler	Abide in John's First Epistle	1 John 2:3-17
Martha S. Bergen	Jewish Feasts & Festivals	John 7:10-39
Rick Byargeon	Sinai: The Mountain of God	Ex 33:12 - 34:9
Joseph R. Cathey	ARTIfacts: The City of David
Bennie R. Crockett Jr.	Three Social Divisions in the First Century	Gal 3:26-29
Terry Ellis	Sins of the Flesh	Gal 5:16-26
R. D. Fowler	Mirrors	James 1:19-27
John L. Harris	The Book of Jonah in Its Historical Setting	Jonah
G. B. Howell Jr.	Paul: Missionary of Jesus by Paul Barnett [book review]
Francis X. Kimmitt	Ancient Culture and Law	Ex 33:12 - 34:9
John Mason	Literacy in the First Century	Galatians, James, 1 Peter, 1 John
Allan Moseley	The Tabernacle: Its History and Use	Ex 35:4 - 36:7
Mark Rathel	"Light" in John's Writings	1 John 1:1 - 2:2
Charles A. Ray Jr.	Genuine Humility	James 4:1-17
C. Mack Roark	James' Ethical Imperatives	James
Don H. Stewart	Galatia: Its History	Galatians
L. Thomas Strong III	The Social Elite in the First Century	James 2:1-13
J. Mark Terry	Gideon: His Life and Times	Judges 6:11-40
Timothy Trammell	Traveling Through Galatia [center spread]	Galatians
Robert A. Weathers	Colossae in the First Century	Col 1:1-29
C. Alan Woodward	The Churches of Galatia	Gal 1

The articles above are in both the print issue of BI and the BI Plus CD-ROM. However, the articles below are from previous issues and can be found only on the CD-ROM edition, Biblical Illustrator Plus.

Scott Andrew	Faith	James 1:3; 2:14; 2 Peter 1:5
Stephen J. Andrews	Sackcloth and Fasting in Jonah	Jonah
Stephen J. Andrews	Hazor: A Great City	Josh 10:1 - 12:24
Waylon Bailey	Aaron's Golden Calf	Ex 32:15-19, 30-34; 34:4-6
Bryan E. Beyer	God's Message for Ninevah	Jonah 2:10 - 3:10
James A. Brooks	Gnosticism	1 John 4:1-3
James A. Brooks	Redemption	1 Pet 1:18; Eph 1:7
Trent C. Butler	Near Eastern Creation Stories	Genesis
James Carter	Old Testament Backgrounds of the Book of James	James
Robert O. Coleman	The Fountain	James 3:11
Robert O. Coleman	The Sirocco and the Flower	James 1:11
Bob Dean	The Counselor	John 14-16
David S. Dockery	The Meaning of Deposit	2 Cor 1:21-22; 5:1-5; Eph 1:11-14
David S. Dockery	To Betray Another	Matt 26:26-56
Charles W. Draper	Law and Faith	Galatians
Mark R. Dunn	Counselor: The Meaning	John 14:15-31; 15:26-27; 16:5-15
Mark R. Dunn	Who Were the Samaritans?	John 4:4-26
J. Scott Duvall	Grace	Rom 5:6-17
Kendell H. Easley	The Prison Epistles	Philemon; Colossians
Terry W. Eddinger	Ninevah: Assyria's Last Capital	Jonah 4:1-11
Gary Lee Gramling	Paul's Ethical Absolutes	Colossians
Sharon H. Gritz	The Betrayer: Judas Iscariot	Matt 26-28
Fred Howard	Prayer: A Word Study	Psalm 28:6-7; Col 4:2-4; 1 Thess 5:16-18; 1 Peter 5:6-7
Paul N. Jackson	A Christian Ethic of Business	James 4:1-17
Robert Earl Jones	Abide: The Meaning	1 John 2:3-17
Scott Langston	Midian in the Time of the Judges	Judges 4:1 - 9:57
Bill Latta	Gold Rings and Fine Clothing	James 2:2-3
Michael Martin	Fallen from Grace	Gal 5:4
John Mason	Horses: Their First Century Use	James 3:1-5
M. Pierce Matheney Jr.	The Historical Setting for the Book of Jeremiah	Jer 1:4-10; 4:1-4; 6:16-17
David M. May	The Spirit of Restoration	Gal 6:1-10, 14-18
Glenn McCoy	Christ's Second Coming	Heb 9:28; James 5:7
Glenn McCoy	The Royal Law	James 2:1-13
Larry McGraw	Freedom and the Christian	Matt 18:15-17; Gal 5:13-15; 6:1-5
Larry McGraw	The Life Situation of James	James
Larry McKinney	The Background of Schoolmaster	Gal 3:1-5, 23 - 4:7
Harold L. McManus	First Century Wars and Their Causes	James 4:1
Warren McWilliams	The Galatian People	Galatians
Janice Meier	Gideon: All We Know	Judges 6-8
John Polhill	John's Use of "Witness"	1 John 5:1-12
John Polhill	The Meaning of "Justified"	Gal 2:11-21
John Polhill	No Respecter of Persons: God's View of Race Relations	Acts 10:34-35
Wayne W. Poplin	Gideon: A Mighty Warrior	Judges 6:11
Gregory T. Pouncey	Libertinism & Legalism	Gal 5:16-26
Michael Priest	Titus and Paul	Titus
M. Dean Register	God's Wisdom/Man's Wisdom	1 Cor 2:1-16
Charles A. Ray Jr.	Antichrist in John's Letters	1-3 John
Charles A. Ray Jr.	Christ and the Kosmos	Phil 2:19-24; James 3:13-16; 1 John 2:15-17
Charles A. Ray Jr.	The Law of Freedom	James 1:22-27; 2:14-18
E. Randy Richards	Stop Lying	Col 3:8-9; James 3:3-12; 1 Pet 3:8-10
C. Mack Roark	Introducing 1 John	1 John 1:5-10; 2:3-11
Paul E. Robertson	The Churches of Galatia	Galatians
David M. Russell	The Colossian Heresies	Col 1:9-23
Billy Simmons	A Religious History of Galatia	Galatians
Bob Simmons	The Curse	Gal 3:15 - 4:7
Billy K. Smith	The Meaning of "God's Spirit Moved"	Gen 1:1-5, 31 - 2:1, 15-17
Harold S. Songer	Anointing with Oil: What Does It Mean?	James 5:14
Gerald L. Stevens	"Blaspheme": A Word Study	James 2:1-13
Robert A. Street Jr.	Micah: His Life and Times
Leslie "Thomas" Strong III	Family Life in Ancient Corinth	1 Cor 7:1-5; 8-16
Roger R. Sullivan	Corinth's Religious Atmosphere	1 Cor 8:12-13
J. Mark Terry	Jonah's Vine	Jonah 4:1-11
William B. Tolar	A Different Gospel	Gal 1:1-12
William B. Tolar	Paul's Fruit List	Gal 6:16-26
Timothy Trammell	Faith Affirmed	1 John 5:1-12
Timothy Trammell	The Purpose and Life Situation of John's Letters	1-3 John
Robert A. Weathers	Sexual Purity in the New Testament	Job 31:1-4; Psalm 10:3-4; 2 Cor 10:4-5; 1 Thess 3-5, 7
Elgia "Jay" Wells	Lessons for Race Relations	Acts 10:1-48; 8:26-40
Terry L. Wilder	The Role of a Steward	1 Peter 4:7-19
Jerry M. Windsor	Grace	Ephesians
C. Alan Woodward	Heresies in the Colossian Church	Colossians
G. Al Wright Jr.	Testing	James 1:2-4, 9-15, 26-27

Now, when I’ve written about BI before, I’ve suggested that it has value even for people who don’t teach from SBC curriculum. Why? Well, the articles provided in each issue are invaluable if one is involved in any aspect of preaching or teaching. Every CD in the “Plus” edition contains almost 100 articles. A couple of years ago, I began copying the articles (all in PDF format) from the CD onto my hard drive. I divide them up by books of the Bible as can be seen below:

Thus, regardless of whether I’m working on a Sunday School lesson, sermon, college lecture, or some other study of the Bible, I have dozens of background articles at my immediate disposal.

Recently, I’ve started listing articles in my personal notes in Accordance where I do the bulk of my preparation for teaching the Bible. I haven’t completed this project yet, but once I’m finished, I’ll have a running index in biblical order of the articles I have available.

I promise you I receive no commission from Lifeway for promoting BI here on This Lamp! I simply remain very enthusiastic about this resource and highly recommend it to others who are in any kind of teaching or preaching ministry. The print edition is $24.95 a year and the CDROM edition (with all the extra articles from past issues) is $34.95.

Tags: Biblical Illustrator, Accordance

I use Accordance Bible software everyday. Everyday. Yes, I do have other Bible software on my MacBook Pro, but Accordance is unparalleled in terms of sophistication and functionality in my experience since switching to the Mac platform in 1998. I use it for 97.5% of what I do in electronic biblical studies.

However, I regularly find that some folks--even Mac users--aren’t familiar with Accordance. Therefore, I’m glad to see Oak Tree Software expanding their web presence. Of course they already had a website, a blog and more, but I’m pleased to see them expanding into resources like their new video podcast as well as creating a YouTube presence.

To my knowledge, here is a fairly complete listing of Accordance’s web presence. If I’ve left anything off, let me know and I’ll add it.

Accordance on the Web

• Accordance Main Website: the main resource for finding out about Accordance and ordering software
• Accordance Blog: updated multiple times a week with tips, help and module profiles
• Accordance Forums: an incredible source for finding help from other users and representatives from Oak Tree software. In fact, Oak Tree has the fastest, personal response to questions I’ve ever seen from any company. Users can also offer their own tips and suggestions as well as request new modules.
• Accordance FaceBook Page: A great way to keep up with what’s new in Accordance as well as interact with other Facebook Accordance users.
• Lighting the Lamp Video Podcast: A brand new weekly video podcast hosted by Dr. Timothy Jenney.
• Accordance YouTube Channel: Features many of the videos available on the main website, but may be easier to embed on personal websites and blogs.
• Accordance Twitter Account: keep up with all things new and interesting about Accordance via Twitter.
• Accordance Exchange: At no extra cost, every level of Accordance comes with the ability to create your own user tools, user Bibles, user notes and distribute them to others. The Accordance Exchange is a great resource for accessing these files created by other Accordance users.
• Banners for User Websites: Accordance users can help to promote Accordance on their own websites and blogs. You’ll see one of these in the left sidebar that I’ve had on This Lamp for a while.
• Video Demos and Instructional Tutorials: Note two separate links at this bullet. The video demos show off the most recent version of Accordance. The instructional videos contain the entire training DVD, now available for free online.

If you haven’t seen Accordance for yourself, watch one of the videos linked above or try out a demo for yourself.

Tags: Accordance

“Of making many NIV Bibles there seems to be no end, and a lack of TNIV Bibles wearies my soul.”
(With apologies to Qoheleth and Ecclesiastes 12:12)

I took an online survey from Zondervan tonight for a YANIVB. What’s a YANIVB? Well, YANIVB stands for “Yet Another NIV Bible.” While the TNIV seems to be losing ground everyday, it seems that there’s no end in sight for new NIV Bibles.

The Bible in question here? Well, it’s based upon the work of Lee Strobel and called The Case for Faith Study Bible. It’s so early in development stage that if you run a Google search on this Bible right now--even if you put quotation marks around it--you won’t get any hits. At least if you run your search within a close timeframe for my writing this post.

The main thrust of the survey was to select which cover I liked best:

Incidentally, I liked the top right cover best and the bottom left cover second best.

Of course, as you would guess, I’ve got a HUGE problem with this Bible. No, it’s not the theme. For what it’s worth, I think Lee Strobel is a great guy, and I’ve given away some of his books. My problem with this Bible is that it’s a NEW Bible released with the NIV as its text rather than the TNIV.

I really don’t understand this. The NIV continues to cannibalize sales of the TNIV and lessen the latter’s chance of acceptance. It is clearly shortsighted for Zondervan to keep the NIV as its flagship translation to the neglect of the TNIV, to continue to promote NEW products based around the NIV while new TNIV projects are few and far between. One day the NIV will slip from its spot as bestselling translation, but it won’t be the TNIV to take its place because the TNIV will have died from neglect by that time.

But do you want to know what makes creating Lee Strobel’s Bible around the NIV most egregious?

Well, if you go over to TNIV.com, click on the “Who’s Reading It” tab, and then click on the “Who Recommends It” tab, guess who appears FIRST!

Thats right! There’s Lee Strobel, front and center, stating “I’m thankful to have the TNIV as one more valuable tool in reaching the next generation.”

Well, too bad, Mr. Strobel, we’re going to make you use the Bible of the last generation: the NIV!

I’ve said over and over that Zondervan needs to put strong testimonial power behind the TNIV for people to consider it. Lee Strobel and The Case for Faith Study Bible would be a perfect match for the TNIV. And yet, before it ever even sees print, it becomes another wasted opportunity for Zondervan to move its resources behind the TNIV. YANIVB is what it becomes. When will the tide turn?

Of course, for all of Lee Strobel’s wish for the TNIV to become a valuable tool in reaching the next generation, and for all of Zondervan’s original marketing of the TNIV as a Bible for the 18 to 34 crowd, can anyone tell me why The Student Bible has been revised since the release of the TNIV, and yet still remains an NIV Bible?

Here’s a new slogan: “TNIV: The Best Bible No One Ever Read.”


HT: Jay Davis

Tags: NIV, TNIV, study Bibles

Craig Blomberg, distinguished professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary, has participated on four separate Bible translation committees (ESV, HCSB, NLT, and TNIV). With that much experience, I was curious about a seemingly negative statement of his that I’ve seen on a few websites in regard to the New Living Translation. The specific statement, excised from its original context, reads

I relished the chance to work on the NLT (New Living Translation) team to convert the LBP into a truly dynamic-equivalent translation, but I never recommend it to anyone except to supplement the reading of a more literal translation to generate freshness and new insights, unless they are kids or very poor adult readers. My sixteen- and twelve-year old daughters have been weaned on the NLT and have loved it, but both already on their own are now frequently turning to the NIV.

The original source for this statement is actually a review by Blomberg of Leland Ryken’s book, The Word of God in English: Criteria for Excellence in Bible Translation. The review can be found in the July, 2003, issue of the Denver Journal.

The statement quoted above is used by Michael Marlowe in his fairly critical review of the NLT. In fact, Marlowe gives the context for Blomberg’s quote as “responding to criticism of the NLT.” In Marlowe’s review of the NLT, he makes this statement before supplying the quote by Blomberg above:

Finally, we note that Craig L. Blomberg of Denver Seminary, who was the principal translator for the NLT's Gospel according to Matthew, has explicitly stated that this version is not suitable as a regular Bible for adults. Responding to criticism of the NLT, Blomberg explained that the version is for "kids or very poor adult readers," and he suggested that readers of the NLT should move on to a more accurate version when they are able:

But the context that Marlowe gives is completely wrong. Blomberg isn’t responding to criticism of the NLT at all; rather, he’s writing a review of Ryken’s book! And did Blomberg explicitly say that the NLT “is not suitable as a regular Bible for adults”? Well, not precisely. At the very least Marlowe seems to be overreaching a bit, and seems to be looking for support for the fact that he does not like the NLT. Incidentally, both Marlowe’s statement and Blomberg’s quote are repeated verbatim at the Theopedia’s article on the New Living Translation.

Considering that Blomberg’s review dated back to 2003, I was curious to know if he still held the same feelings about the NLT. Does he really only recommend it to kids or adults who are very poor readers? His statement was made a year before the NLT second edition was released, which I believe fixed a lot of problems in the first edition as well as creating a translation which is sometimes more literal and even more traditional in places than the first edition.

Dr. Blomberg and I have now exchanged a handful of emails on this subject and he has given me permission to share the content of those emails on the internet.

In general, Dr. Blomberg told me that does not recommend the NLT as a primary Bible for adults, but he does recommend it as a supplement to reading other Bibles. However, in another email he offered three contexts for choosing the NLT. I have broken up his statement and added numbers to delineate his three options more clearly:

1. I very much approve of it for people who want a second (third, fourth, or whatever) take on the text,
2. or who want to hear it in a fresh way,
3. or who simply for whatever reason want a dynamically equivalent rather than a formally equivalent (or hybrid) translation.

Dr. Blomberg said that the evaluation immediately above is one he held to even before the release of the second edition NLT. Further, he thinks it’s a shame that comments he made in his review of Ryken’s book were used as they were in opposition to the NLT.*



I will send Dr. Blomberg a link to this post. If you would like to leave your thoughts in the comments, perhaps he may take the opportunity to respond if he has time.

Also, I highly recommend for your reading Dr. Blomberg’s post last year on the Koinonia Blog: “Demystifying Bible Translation and Where Our Culture Is with Inclusive Language.”


*This paragraph was added after the initial posting of this blog entry.

Tags: NLT

Okay, I admit the title is a very bad revision of “Loose lips sink ships,” but bear with me...

I’ve read through the book of Isaiah quite a few times, but I’ve discovered over the years that when I prepare to teach a passage, I always find new elements of the text I hadn’t seen before. One of these insights came from a phrase I came across in Isaiah 45:1, which is part of Isaiah’s prophecy to Cyrus.

In the Hebrew, the phrase is simply ‏וּמָתְנֵי מְלָכִים אֲפַתֵּחַ which translates somewhat literally as “and loins of kings I will loosen/open.”

The context revolves around Cyrus of Persia, the king who would allow the Israelites to return to their homeland and rebuild Jerusalem and the Temple as chronicled in 2 Chronicles 36 and Ezra. Cyrus is an interesting individual. He was a pagan king, comparable to Nebuchadnezzar who, in spite of his foreign religion, was called God’s servant (Jer 25:9; 27:6; 43:10). Like Nebuchadnezzar, God chose to work through this non-Israelite as part of his divine purposes, demonstrating his sovereignty even upon those who do not acknowledge him.

There are allusions to David in God’s depiction of Cyrus. He calls him “my shepherd” (‏רֹעִי) in Isa 44:28 and perhaps more startlingly his “anointed one” (‏מָשִׁיחַ‎, /māšiyaḥ). Thus Cyrus is the only individual in the Bible to be called “anointed one” (or messiah) outside of Israelite kings, priests and Jesus Christ. Cyrus had also been raised by a shepherd. Further, there seems to be imagery related to Moses as well as Cyrus becomes the one who leads (by decree) God’s people out of their captivity to the Promised Land.

Above: The Cyrus Cylinder which includes detail of the king’s granting expatiates permission to return to their homelands.
Source: Bible Lands Photo Guide, version 3 (Accordance)

I try very hard when I’m preparing a lesson to attempt interpretation by myself first before consulting commentaries. I had to admit (although it seems somewhat obvious now) that I was stumped by this reference to God loosening the loins of Cyrus’ rival kings. I’ve begun teaching from the New Living Translation on Sundays, and I consulted Isa 45:1 in the NLT:

This is what the LORD says to Cyrus, his anointed one,
whose right hand he will empower.
Before him, mighty kings will be paralyzed with fear.
Their fortress gates will be opened,
never to shut again.

Most formal translations simply translate the phrase literally, “loose the loins of kings” or something similar. The NLT certainly gets the end result across. I understood that. None of the kings who went before Cyrus would be able to stand before him. But what did the phrase actually mean? I wondered if it meant that foreign kings would be impotent before Cyrus, or perhaps it meant they would wet themselves. The problem, as I would later discover, was that my focus was too literally loin-centered.

Incidentally, when I taught the lesson Sunday and was relaying Cyrus’ rather colorful history, one person in the class asked whether Cyrus came “before or after ‘that guy’ in 300.” I told him that Cyrus came before Xerxes who was featured (rather outlandishly) in the movie 300. But I pointed out that the incredibly large army depicted in that movie had not been built by Xerxes (for the most part), but rather by Cyrus much earlier before him.

Using Accordance, I tried running searches for the exact phrase and then similar phrases, but to my knowledge (feel free to correct me if I’m wrong), there are no other occurrences of loins being loosened, only tightened up, or more appropriately girded up. And then suddenly it made sense! My problem was that I had not been thinking in terms of Hebrew and ANE culture.

At this point, thinking I’d figured it out, I went ahead and consulted a number of commentaries that confirmed my hunch. In the Bible, to “gird up one’s loins” (see Exod 12:11; 1 Kgs 18:46; 20:32; 2 Kgs 1:8; 4:29; 9:1; Job 12:18; 38:3; 40:7; Jer 1:17, esp. in more formal translations) was to tuck the ends of one’s garments into one’s belt so as to be ready for any kind of action, whether fight or flight. What was being described in Isa 45:1 was just the opposite.

Thus, before Cyrus, God would immobilize any king or king’s army who would oppose him. Their readiness for battle would come to nothing. The TNIV renders the phrase “strip kings of their armor” which nicely captures the military aspects just as the NLT’s rendering above relates the psychological end result. The ESV translates the phrase as “to loose the belts of kings,” but that sounds a bit too much like the aftereffects of a Thanksgiving meal.

Regardless, it’s clear in the passage that the God of the Bible is sovereign, choosing to use whom he will when he will, often despite the objections of those who feel themselves to be part of the “in group” (Isa 45:9-13). To those who first objected, God had this message:

“I will raise up Cyrus to fulfill my righteous purpose,
and I will guide his actions.
He will restore my city and free my captive people—
without seeking a reward!
I, the LORD of Heaven’s Armies, have spoken!”” (Isa 45:13, NLT)

And as history records, that’s exactly what happened.

Tags: Isaiah, Cyrus

Genesis 18 (all verses below are from the NLT) tells the interesting story of three mysterious visitors who visit Abraham at the Oak of Mamre:

One day Abraham was sitting at the entrance to his tent during the hottest part of the day. He looked up and noticed three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he ran to meet them and welcomed them, bowing low to the ground.

“My lord,” he said, “if it pleases you, stop here for a while. Rest in the shade of this tree while water is brought to wash your feet. And since you’ve honored your servant with this visit, let me prepare some food to refresh you before you continue on your journey.” “All right,” they said. “Do as you have said.”

Then a few verses later (13), in the story, the reader learns unexpectedly that one of the three visitors is God when reading “Then the LORD said to Abraham.” The all-caps designation stands in place of the divine name for God, (‏יהוה / Yahweh), leaving no doubt to the reader that one of the strangers is God, the same God who will appear to Moses in Exodus 3.

Ever since the early Christians began to work out the relationship of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in what would come to be known as the Trinity, many Christian writers, teachers, and preachers over the last two millennia have looked at Genesis 18 and have suggested that the three individuals who visited Abraham and his family at the Oaks of Mamre were, in fact, the three persons of the Trinity in physical manifestations. This is what is known in theological terms as a theophany, a physical manifestation of God for the purpose of relating to human beings.

The problem is that the Genesis text never specifically states the identity of the two other than beyond the one of them already identified as Yahweh. While some would like to equate Yahweh with God the Father exclusively, traditional Christian doctrine doesn’t make this claim either. In fact, from a Christian perspective, Yahweh is not limited to one person of the Trinity. See for example John 8:58, where Jesus essentially tells the Jewish leaders that they are in the presence of the same “person” who appeared to Moses at the burning bush in Exodus 3, but that doesn’t imply that the Father and Holy Spirit weren’t there, too.

The passage with Abraham in Genesis 18 is subtle. When encountering it for the first time, the reader/hearer may not expect initially that God is one of the visitors, although it is foreshadowed at the beginning of v. 1. Whether the other men who were present with Abraham were theophanies of the other persons of the Trinity or whether they were angels or even someone else, we simply don’t know because we weren’t privy to the entire conversation. And that’s the way the Bible generally works--less is more, if you will.

But not so with William P. Young’s book The Shack. In Young’s book, the main protagonist, Mackenzie Philips gets to sit around the dinner table eating greens and other good food, while picking the brain(s) of God, represented in three physical entities: Papa (Father God), represented by a large African American woman; Jesus (the Son of God), depicted as a Middle Eastern, bearded carpenter; and Sarayu (The Holy Spirit) who is a kind of wispy Asian woman. Mack is there in the Shack on the invitation of Papa because he’s never gotten over the death of his daughter at the hands of a serial killer years earlier. Because of this, not only does he blame himself, he also blames God.

That’s a very brief synopsis of the book, and my hunch is--since I’m so late to the game with this review--that most readers of This Lamp know all this anyway. I’m writing this review because I’ve received questions and emails since last Fall asking what I think of The Shack. By simply being able to point people to this page, I won’t have to repeat myself so much.

Kathy and I listened to the unabridged audio version of The Shack in December while we were traveling to Louisiana and back for Christmas. I don’t own a physical copy of the book, so I won’t be able to quote it verbatim, but it doesn’t really matter. I can still offer my general impression and point readers to other sources.

You need to know, up front, that I don’t think very highly of The Shack on multiple levels. I am certain that some of you will think I’m just being theologically picky, that I’ve let formal study of the Bible make me into some kind of doctrinal do gooder who can’t allow my imagination to see God in creative ways. If you think that, you simply don’t know me well. But don’t just ask me about this book, ask my wife Kathy. She may be less charitable than me.

But let me start by being charitable. Let me start by saying that William P. Young seems to be a really great fellow. At the end of our audio version of The Shack we were able to listen to an extended interview with Young. His motives seem to be nothing more than sincere. At the very least, he is certainly the benefactor of fortunate circumstances with the sale of The Shack into the millions of copies at this point, and no doubt many of the publishers who turned him down greatly regret doing so.

Furthermore, I don’t think that Young was attempting to be unbiblical, let alone introduce heresy into his novel. Nevertheless, he did.

So much has been written about the doctrinal error in The Shack, I started not to even comment on it. One can easily run a Google search for “The Shack” and “heresy” and find a multitude of pages, so I doubt I could top what has already been done. However, let me reproduce here three of Norman Geisler’s fourteen errors in The Shack. Geisler may not win an award for best webpage layout, but he offers a strong theological critique for Young’s work.

Problem Four: An Unbiblical View of the Nature and Triunity of God
In addition to an errant view of Scripture, The Shack has an unorthodox view of the Trinity. God appears as three separate persons (in three separate bodies) which seems to support Tritheism in spite of the fact that the author denies Tritheism (“We are not three gods” ) and Modalism (“We are not talking about One God with three attitudes”—p. 100). Nonetheless, Young departs from the essential nature of God for a social relationship among the members of the Trinity. He wrongly stresses the plurality of God as three separate persons: God the Father appears as an “African American woman” (80); Jesus appears as a Middle Eastern worker (82). The Holy Spirit is represented as “a small, distinctively Asian woman” (82). And according to Young, the unity of God is not in one essence (nature), as the orthodox view holds. Rather, it is a social union of three separate persons. Besides the false teaching that God the Father and the Holy Spirit have physical bodies (since “God is spirit”—Jn. 4:24), the members of the Trinity are not separate persons (as The Shack portrays them); they are only distinct persons in one divine nature. Just as a triangle has three distinct corners, yet is one triangle. It is not three separate corners (for then it would not be a triangle if the corners were separated from it), Even so, God is one in essence but has three distinct (but inseparable) Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Problem Five: An Unbiblical View of Punishing Sin
Another claim is that God does not need to punish sin. He states, “At that, Papa stopped her preparations and turned toward Mack. He could see a deep sadness in her eyes. ‘I am not who you think I am, Mackenzie. I don’t need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It is not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it’” (119). As welcoming as this message may be, it at best reveals a dangerously imbalanced understanding of God. For in addition to being loving and kind, God is also holy and just. Indeed, because He is just He must punish sin. The Bible explicitly says that” the soul that sins shall die” (Eze. 18:2). “I am holy, says the Lord” (Lev. 11:44). He is so holy that Habakkuk says of God, “You…are of purer eyes than to see evil and cannot look at wrong…” (Hab. 1:13). Romans 6:23 declares: “The wages of sin is death….” And Paul added, “‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay’ says the Lord” (Rom. 12:19).
In short, The Shack presents lop-sided view of God as love but not justice. This view of a God who will not punish sin undermines the central message of Christianity—that Christ died for our sins (1 Cor. 15:1f.) and rose from the dead. Indeed, some emergent Church leaders have given a more frontal and near blasphemous attack on the sacrificial atonement of Christ, calling it a “form of cosmic child abuse—a vengeful father, punishing his son for offences he has not even committed” (Steve Chalke, The Lost Message of Jesus, 184). Such is the end of the logic that denies an awesomely holy God who cannot tolerate sin was satisfied (propitiated) on behalf of our sin (1 Jn. 2:1). For Christ paid the penalty for us, “being made sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God through him” (2 Cor. 5:21), “suffering the just for the unjust that He might bring us to God” (1 Pet. 3:18).

Problem Six: A False View of the Incarnation
Another area of concern is a false view of the person and work of Christ. The book states, “When we three spoke ourself into human existence as the Son of God, we became fully human. We also chose to embrace all the limitations that this entailed. Even though we have always been present in this universe, we now became flesh and blood” (98). However, this is a serious misunderstanding of the Incarnation of Christ. The whole Trinity was not incarnated. Only the Son was (Jn. 1:14), and in His case deity did not become humanity but the Second Person of the Godhead assumed a human nature in addition to His divine nature. Neither the Father nor Holy Spirit (who are pure spirit--John 4:24) became human, only the Son did.

Look, I admit that understanding the nature of God--understanding the Trinity--is not the easiest of subjects. But it amazes me to hear from so many Christians “After reading The Shack, I think I finally understand the Trinity!” Well, no you don’t. You’ve merely become familiar with Young’s distortion of it. Again, I don’t think Young set out to distort a doctrine like that of the Trinity. I just don’t think he was able to write this kind of story without introducing error. And there’s lots of places I could go on about other weird representations of God (like Papa [the God the Father character] showing off his wounds, a textbook example of the heresy of patripassionism, which Geisler also notes), but where does one really stop? For those who want to read further on these kinds of issues--and really you should--there are links at the bottom of this post.

On a completely different level, The Shack doesn’t work for me simply because overall, it’s not good literature. Let me qualify that statement. I’ll admit up front that everything leading up to Mack’s entering the shack where his dialogue with God begins kept my keen attention. It was a tragic story about the loss of his daughter and his estrangement from God, and one that I was really interested in. And I would also point to Mack’s vision (or whatever you want to call it) in which he was reconciled to his earthly father--powerful stuff.

Unfortunately, it’s the most significant part of the book--his encounter and dialogue with the persons of the Godhead--which not only are full of bad theology, but really are the weakest narrative parts of the whole story. The dialogue is overblown, repetitive, and pretentious. If you want good theological dialogue, I recommend Peter Kreeft (see here
and here). But if it’s true that George Lucas is incapable of writing realistic romantic dialogue, the same can be said for William P. Young when it comes to religious dialogue.

Besides that, there is too much content in the story that’s just plain weird or cheesy. The ongoing joke about Mack’s potential flatulence causing Papa (God the Father, as you’ll remember) to refuse him any more greens at dinner was more weird than humorous to both Kathy and me. Papa laughing at Jesus and calling him “Butterfingers” when he let slip a casserole dish, letting it come crashing to the floor seemed not only odd, but also introduced another doctrinal error. Essentially Young has Jesus err, something the Bible says he was incapable of doing. Would this also mean that Jesus occasionally smashed his thumb during carpentry work in Nazareth? Such a thought or question might not even matter to most reading this, but the implications start to get unsettling.

I had to grimace and shake my head when Mack opened his nightstand drawer in his bedroom at the shack and found a Gideon’s Bible. Ha ha ha. To me, that’s the kind of “gimmick” that distracts more than adds to the story. Further, when Jesus and Mack needed to walk to the other side of the lake, I knew it was coming before Young said it--sure enough, they would walk across the water! What else would you do if you were with Jesus? It’s these kind of gee whiz moments that I felt were bordering on immature and simply not needed in the story.

And should I even go into how Mack’s conversations with Papa in the kitchen while she was cooking was a blatant rip-off of Neo in The Matrix conversing with the Oracle in her kitchen while she made cookies? Should I question how Mack’s character, who was supposedly seminary trained, could ask the most inane questions of God, that any student who went to an institution worth its salt, or for that matter, any laymen who’d spent any decent amount of time with the Bible should know?

What boggles my mind is that a number of well-respected individuals do consider The Shack to be good literature. One endorsement comes from Eugene Peterson, an individual I admire very much and happen to be reading currently. Of The Shack, Peterson says this:

When the imagination of a writer and the passion of a theologian cross-fertilize the result is a novel on the order of The Shack. This book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress did for his. It's that good!

The Shack equated to Pilgrim’s Progress? Really? Seriously? I read that and it makes me wonder if Peterson actually read the book. I don’t mean that as an insult against him. Regularly, well known individuals are approached by publishers, given a synopsis of a book, and then an already written endorsement for the individual to sign. Most of the endorsements you see on the back covers of books are handled this way. Endorsements should be evaluated with more than a grain of salt.

Yet, I could see why someone like Peterson would appreciate the concept of The Shack simply because of the way he sees the communal nature of the Trinity. In Christ Plays in Ten Thousand Places, Peterson writes,

Trinity understands God as three-personed: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, God in community, each “person” in active communion with others. We are given an understanding of God that is most emphatically personal and interpersonal. God is nothing if not personal. If God is revealed as personal, the only way that God can be known is in personal response. We need to know this. It is the easiest thing in the world to use words as a kind of abstract truth or principle, to deal with the gospel as information. Trinity prevents us from doing this.

The premise of The Shack promises what Peterson describes above; unfortunately it does not satisfyingly deliver. And that’s the key question--does The Shack really satisfy? Ask yourself that if you really liked the book. Strip away the way the persons of the Godhead were presented in very likable portrayals. Strip away the meal time conversations, the walking on water across the lake, and ask yourself if you really know God better.

Here’s the problem: ultimately we are not given real answers by God in The Shack. Rather we are given answers as best as William P. Young understands God and can speak for God. See, in any work of fiction, the writer is ultimately God. The writer sets the events in an absolute predetermined way, and all characters--even God himself as a character--will speak and behave only in how the true god of the story (the writer) thinks they should. I’m not trying to be harsh here, but I’m trying to remind readers of this very important fact: The Shack does not contain a message from God; it contains a message about God from the writer--a writer whom to my knowledge hasn’t received any more revelation from the real God than you or me. This writer did the best job he knew how, but ultimately, he doesn’t really give us anything new and certainly nothing revelatory about God and our relationship to him.

And frankly, it saddens me that so many have so uncritically embraced the book. You don’t have to be a theologian to see problems in The Shack. Kathy does not consider herself a theologian at all, but as we were listening to the audio version, she offered a blow by blow commentary of its weaknesses as we listened. The book right now has almost 3000 reviews on Amazon.com. One reviewer, who said he liked the book, but gave it only three out of five stars noted that he was very concerned by the “book being embraced with nothing but naive, uncritical, and untempered enthusiasm.” This concerns me as well.

My friend Todd Benkert has written about the popularity of The Shack, trying to figure out why it’s been so very popular for a self-published book. In his blog post, “One More Post about The Shack with ‘Something Else’ to Consider,” Todd offers this theory:

The Shack offers people what the church, by and large, does not--hope for and acceptance of messed up people.

Mack is a messed up person. He has real hurts. He has experienced real pain. He does not act and think the way a Christian ought to act and think. In fact, he questions and even blames God for what has happened to him. People relate to Mack. They relate to the pain and hurt and struggle and questions Mack has. And they find from Papa, Jesus, and Sarayu the kind of understanding and acceptance that is, for whatever reason, missing in the church.

Todd may very well be on to something. My concern is that while the Church does indeed need to get its act together in regard to people who are hurting, The Shack is not really a solution. It’s a band aid for a much more serious kind of wound. Think about this really-- if you knew someone who had lost a child through murder or some other tragic means, would you really consider giving The Shack to a hurting person to read? I cannot fathom that idea.

And I know that many people who’ve appreciated The Shack feel as if they can relate to God better after reading the book. But if someone wants to know what God is like, rather than handing them a copy of The Shack, (and pardon me if this sounds unnecessarily church) I’d give them a copy of the New Testament. In the Gospels, we learn how God “became human and made his home among us.” In doing so, not only did he provide a way for us to be reconciled to him, he also “put on a face” in the person of Jesus. You want to know what God is like? Read the Gospels. Do you want to know specifically what the Father and Son are like and how they interrelate? Engage in a good study of Jesus’ parables. If you’re curious to know how to relate to the Holy Spirit, read the Book of Acts. God has revealed himself already through his Son and through his written Word. If you still cannot relate, it may be your translation of the Bible. Be sure you are reading something translated in the last decade or so in normal, contemporary English.

I have no trouble recommending the New Testament as a way of relating to God. That’s one of its major functions. But sadly, I cannot recommend The Shack under any circumstances or in any contexts.


For Further Reading:

• “The Shack: Helpful or Heretical? A Critical Review by Norman Geisler and Bill Roach”
    Geisler and Roach outline 14 primary theological blunders made in The Shack. Some of these are more significant than others, but they still make a compelling case.

• “A Look at The Shack” (The Albert Mohler Radio Program)
    You can download this MP3 file and listen to it on your iPod or iPhone while driving to work.

Lest anyone accuse me of not giving equal time, here are two reviews a little more positive worth considering:

• “Reading in Good Faith” by Derek Keefe
    Acknowledging there are problems in the book, Derek Keefe finds some value in The Shack that the church can benefit from.

• “The Shack by King David” by Gordon MacDonald
    MacDonald wonders if anyone took offense when David portrayed God as a smelly, dirty shepherd in Psalm 23.

Can the NLT be used to teach theology if it doesn't use theological terms?

Todd Benkert is a pastor in Indiana and a friend of mine I’ve known for quite a while. Over the years, we’ve had a number of discussions including ones about what what translations are beneficial for teaching and preaching. As I’ve been contemplating making the NLT my primary public use Bible in the church (I’ve already been using it with college classes that I teach), Todd has been thinking about using the NLT from the pulpit. Currently, he uses the ESV, but he recognizes its deficiencies.

In a recent post on Todd’s website Be My Witnesses, we got into a discussion about whether or not the NLT would work in certain public settings. In the comments, Todd wrote the following:

My main qualm, which I can't decide if its a strength or weakness of the NLT, is that is removes justification terminology from the text (see, e.g., Rom 3). On the one hand, it is helpful because the concept is now accessible to the reader. On the other hand, the systematic theologian in me want to retain the word and then explain it. If I can get over that, then I'm all in with the NLT.

Todd gave me permission to reproduce my reply here which I’ve cleaned up a little bit and reproduced below:

Let's take for instance Romans 3:25, which in the ESV reads:

whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.

Now, I chose the above verse because it is from Rom 3, which you referred to as a chapter in the NLT which "removes justification terminology from the text." I also made bold propitiation because it is certainly a prime example of "justification terminology."

Propitiation is one of those heavily loaded theological words which carries a lot of meaning in a very small label. Now, as you know fully well, the underlying Greek word is ἱλαστήριον. When a word like propitiation is used in a verse like this, really it acts more as a placeholder for the larger context. In other words, the average person in the pew--in your pew--is probably not going to walk around with a fully developed theology of propitiation in his or her head. Some will, but realistically, most won't.

What this means is that regardless of what word is used here, whether it is propitiation orhg the phrase "sacrifice of atonement" (NIV, NRSV), it will still require some amount of explanation by you. Incidentally, the word atonement was coined by Tyndale for use in his OT translation because he couldn't find a suitable English word for ‏כָּפַר.

The question remains whether it is better to have that theologically loaded word (really just a label, a placeholder) propitiation in the text or is something else just as suitable or even better?

I've seen people evaluate translations of the Bible (and I think I used to do it myself) based on whether the word propitiation was used or not in the New Testament, specifically in Rom 3:25; Heb 2:17; 1 John 2:2; and 4:10 (although technically, the last two references use ἱλασμός in the Greek).

What's interesting is that although the word propitiation was used in the King James Version, it was not used in William Tyndale's translation upon which the KJV was primarily based.

The Tyndale NT reads this way (with emphasis added) in Rom 3:25

whom God hath made a seate of mercy thorow faith in his bloud to shewe ye rightewesnes which before him is of valoure in yt he forgeveth ye synnes yt are passed which God dyd suffre

So where did the KJV translators get the word propitiation from? Why, straight out of the Latin Vulgate! Here is Rom 3:25 in Latin:

quem proposuit Deus propitiationem per fidem in sanguine ipsius ad ostensionem iustitiae suae propter remissionem praecedentium delictorum

What is inescapable, regardless of how one looks at it, is the KJV translators, rather than trying to actually translate ἱλαστήριον into an English equivalent, instead "cheated" and just grabbed the Latin word (this, of course, is not much different than what was done by simply transliterating βαπτίζω as baptize, rather than correctly translating it as "immerse," but now the real "Baptist" [pun intended] is coming out in me).

So, what does ἱλαστήριον actually mean (I know you know what it means, but bear with me for sake of discussion)? Or what is it that Jesus actually did for us on the cross (the real question)? I'm not going to try to answer the second question just yet, but I will say that when NT writers, especially in the epistles, try to answer that question, their answer at the most basic level is some kind of common analogy for what took place on a spiritual level. This is true, regardless of whether Paul is speaking of ἱλαστήριον in Rom 3:25 or ἀντίλυτρον ("ransom") in 1 Tim 2:6. In the Reformation, emphasis came back upon ἱλαστήριον as a primary image (which I completely affirm), but in the early church, made up of the poor and in many cases, freed slaves, the idea of ἀντίλυτρον was favored. The reality is we need all of the images the NT provides to try to understand what Jesus did for us on the cross.

But back to my original question in regard to what ἱλαστήριον actually means-- When Paul uses this word, he is borrowing it from two arenas. On one hand, it's a pagan word used to describe the appeasement of a foreign god in their sacrificial ceremonies. The word meant this throughout ancient Greek literature, especially in regard to appeasing the wrath of the pagan God through sacrifice. On the other hand, the word ἱλαστήριον had been "co-opted" a couple of centuries earlier by the writers of the Septuagint to refer to the Old Testament mercy seat--the place above the ark of the covenant where sacrificial blood was sprinkled by the high priest to make atonement (thank you, William Tyndale) for Israel's sins; that is, to restore the people of Israel into fellowship with God.

So what did Jesus do on the cross (if I can take a stab at the second question now)? Well, to follow the lead of the NT writers and also Tyndale, he "mercy seated" us with God.

Now, back to that Latin label/placeholder propitiation... This word sees the ἱλαστήριον as the place of atonement. Jesus was the "place" where God's anger was removed. But as you probably remember, C. H. Dodd in The Bible and the Greeks rejected Jesus as the place of atonement. He saw this as too closely tied to paganism. Furthermore, he was uncomfortable with the idea of a "wrathful" God. He said expiation was a better translation because it was God’s appointed means to deal with our situation. On the Day of Atonement, he makes the effects of sin ineffective. Emphasis is on what God does (expiation), rather than what humans do (propitiation).

And of course, C. H. Dodd influenced translations of the Bible such as the RSV and NEB that opted for the word expiation in a verse like Rom 3:25 rather than propitiation.

But then Leon Morris came along, and in New Testament Studies said that wrath was indeed present in both Old and New Testaments (contrary to Dodd). Further, Morris went on to say that ἱλαστήριον is not an either/or in regard to expiation or propitiation, but a both/and: Morris said God expiates and is propitiated. The opposite of love is not wrath; the two are not incompatible. Anger is an appropriate reaction at times to those you love. The opposite of love is hatred—something into which anger can turn. Morris saw wrath as a positive angry love that does many wonderful things in the world.

In the Day of Atonement, God’s anger loomed large. Sin was taken seriously. Paul’s thought was how the Day of Atonement was understood in his time, not necessarily when it was who first proclaimed in Leviticus.

Since Morris, we have seen the rise of Bible translations that opted not to use either word (propitiation or expiation), but rather simply to translate ἱλαστήριον as "sacrifice of atonement" or something similar, leaving it up to the preacher or teacher to explain further if desired.

So back to the NLT...

The 1996 NLT reading of Rom 3:25 may have simply tried to do too much:

For God sent Jesus to take the punishment for our sins and to satisfy God’s anger against us. We are made right with God when we believe that Jesus shed his blood, sacrificing his life for us. God was being entirely fair and just when he did not punish those who sinned in former times.

There's definitely the standard "propitiatory" language in there. In fact, propitiation is defined pretty clearly in that rendering, over and above what the Greek actually says.

The 2004 revision is less overt:

For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood. This sacrifice shows that God was being fair when he held back and did not punish those who sinned in times past

"Jesus as the sacrifice for sin" is probably closer to that non-specific "sacrifice of atonement" in the NRSV & NIV.

And for point of reference, the translators for Romans in the NLT are Gerald Borchert, Douglas Moo and Thom Schreiner -- a pretty good mix of scholarship and viewpoint.

So, finally, back to your original concern, regardless of how it's worded, I believe there's still PLENTY for you as pastor/teacher to explain. I really wouldn't let lack of formal theological language--especially those which are simply Latin loan words--hold you back.

Tags: atonement, NLT