Historian of Religion, Science, and Biblical Interpretation
Since we’re about to start Paul’s letters, I thought I’d share this. It’s an expansion of a handout I’ve used sometimes about five common ways we misread Paul with modern, Western eyes. (Misreading with Western Eyes is one of the Top 5 I books recommend)
Today we begin something new that is neither here nor there. Acts is not a letter, like so much of the rest of the New Testament will be. But it’s not a gospel, like the first four books we’ve read. Luke makes clear that it’s a follow-up.
It’s been quite a semester. Continue reading
I tend not to use the words “fallible” or “speaking as a man” or “prophets aren’t perfect” when talking about the nature of prophethood.
On April 19th at 7pm, I’ll deliver a lecture, “Henry Eyring Sr. vs. Melvin Cook: Chemistry, Creationism, and Competition for the Authority of Science at the University of Utah.”
I’ve linked below to the video of my recent talk at the University of Utah, and further reading for those interested.
I’ve been devoting the vast majority of my time to the dissertation, and haven’t posted much. But here’s a fun little tidbit.
Oftentimes in the archive, something grabs your attention. And as you acquire more and more of these things that have grabbed, you start making connections between them.
Edwin S. Hinckley was a BYU science professor at the turn of the 19th century, back when BYU was very small. He was also the favorite uncle of a young boy named Gordon B. Hinckley.
Arvo Pärt’s magnificent Magnificat, one of many songs based on the Latin translation of Mary’s “my soul doth magnify (magnificat) the Lord” in Luke 1:46ff. (Here’s a small ensemble version)
Genealogies
Both Matthew and Luke give us genealogies, and read through modern eyes, we’re inclined to skip over them, or misunderstand them; the one thing they are NOT telling us is the one thing we assume they are telling us: genetic genealogical descent. And this is one reason why we get confused as to why Luke and Matthew’s genealogies differ. Continue reading
As we begin our year in the New Testament, we naturally start with the Gospels… which is a problem, funny enough. Continue reading
Let’s talk about languages, particularly, Biblical languages: Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. These are very different from English. Greek has five grammatical cases, for example, and Biblical Hebrew doesn’t have tenses, strictly speaking.1Modern Hebrew has reworked its verbal system on the basis of European languages so that it does have tenses. Many people are interested in looking at the underlying languages of the translation they’re reading. Frankly, to paraphrase King Benjamin,
I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit linguistic sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them.
Even people with a semester or two can make serious errors.
So… what about Strong’s Concordance?
Recent Comments