Addendum

After more contemplation, I realized that the faith factor of this discussion must be considered with further magnification. For while both sides of this discussion have access to a large battery of questions, and logical complications, both sides also require faith. It is at this point where this argument becomes simpler. Let us then examine these focal points.

Let us begin with the tradition of the Reformation and the Textus Receptus. Those who hold to the position of the TR believe that God has promised to preserve His word. We believe that without the Word of God we would be lost. We believe that God used the Reformation, the TR tradition, and people like Erasmus to compile the Greek text we have before us today (I only make mention of Erasmus because the other side is sure to, and we need to have an idea in our mind of the proper role he did and did not play). Here is the focal point we have come to see. We accept by faith that God used these men, this tradition, and the Spirit working in the revived church to preserve this Text, between two covers, without error. This was done without inspiring any of those working on the texts, or anyone who was translating.

Those along the CT side follow much the same formula. They believe that God has promised to preserve His word. They believe that without this Word, we cannot be saved. They will admit that God worked in and through the Reformation, the TR tradition, and people like Erasmus. (Most, if not all, do call the TR a corrupt text though.) This side believes that the TR is not perfect. They believe God has kept His promise by preserving for us all His words spread throughout all the MSS. With this form of preservation, God’s word is not and cannot be between two covers. Instead it is found in all the MSS. Since it is found in all the MSS, then in order to know which words are God’s words in Greek, the CT person must trust that the translation committees of today will find God’s words for them. This is their point of faith.

The foremost factor here is faith. Do you trust that God worked in the Reformation and TR tradition to give us His complete Word between two covers? Or, do you believe that God preserved His word for us in all the MSS and that He uses dozens of different translation committees to show it to us? Obviously, we have a point of faith in each argument. Which is more believable? Which conforms to the Scriptural definition of preservation? That is the key.

Remember, everything must be tested with Scripture. The passages mentioned previously leave no room for doubting that the church will have the complete Scripture. Not spread throughout the world, but always in its possession. Further, the Great Commission requires that we teach all nations. This requires that we be able to consistently and faithfully translate this Greek text into languages spoken by the common people. Notice however, that in order to be able to translate with any certainty the words of God, that one must in fact have those words before him. If those words are spread far and wide, no person can truly undertake the necessary job of translating into the common tongue. We are then stuck waiting on the words from the scholars who cannot agree amongst themselves.

If we accept by faith that God worked in the TR tradition and the reformation to bring together His perfect word, then we do not have a problem understanding and accepting that some words in our Greek text have their support in the Latin. We don’t have a problem understanding that words that have miniscule support are given by inspiration of God. Just as the unregenerate looks at Scripture and says, “It isn’t possible that the church really found all the right books. You don’t even claim inspiration for them!” So, the textual critic of today looks at the TR and says, “It isn’t possible that the Reformers /TR tradition /Holy-Spirit-lead-church really found all the words God intended.”

Yes!! It is possible! The literal exegesis of the Scriptures requires it! We accept it by faith that God has kept His promises!


Addendum 2.

Note that the method and argumentation for the determination of the canon is virtually the same as the method and argumentation for the authority of the TR tradition. The canon was brought together to conform to that which God had already determined by the early church. This is a fact accepted by both sides, and often argued by both together against the unregenerate. This is the history of the formulation of the canon. As discussed briefly before, the canon was not simply given to the church as the canon, but holy men of God by the Spirit of God were lead to reject the false books, and accept those that God had truly spoken. These men were not inspired, nor were they perfect. But as men of God desiring to follow truth, they were lead by God to that truth; we now have the canon of the 27 NT books today. Then after the dark ages, God used the Reformers to reawaken His people and caused them to pursue and compile the TR tradition.

Addendum 3.

It is worth mentioning that there is a difference between the arguments of scholars/theologians and the common layperson. Not to differentiate at all in matters of importance, or intelligence, but rather, we should understand that these groups argue the same topic at different layers. In order to understand when/where they interact it becomes necessary to recognize them. This is not something that I will endeavor to do here. But the level of this discussion in most churches rarely reaches the depth of our discussion.

Addendum 4.

I have endeavored to define the above positions as those whose views align with the most conservative, and exegetically sound. Both sides have authors and proponents that are not consistent, and misrepresent Scripture. I have attempted to not represent either side by those in the outer fringe.

complicated stuff

So, just like theologians struggle with the order of regeneration: Faith, justification, sanctification, imputation, regeneration. What is the order, and can we determine that one must precede another, etc. Hard questions debated for a long time.


The hard question that occurs to me this morning further surrounds the Bible issue which has been foremost in my thoughts lately. The aspect of faith in this issue is necessary. The "majority" opinion is not built on a flimsy case. It isn't at its roots, horrible. We see the destruction that has been caused by veering from the straight and narrow just a bit in defense of the faith. (Recall that the majority of the straying that has affected the church was done by Christians fighting for the Bible.)

But, our hard question boils down to a matter of faith. Why do we defend the Scriptures against the lost who ask how it could possibly be God's Word? How do we defend against those unregenerate scholars that ask how we can be sure we have the complete canon? We do not assign inspiration or infallibility to those men and churches that came to the conclusion that God had written Hebrews and not the Gospel of Thomas. In the same way that the lost look at this and say that we are arguing for the Scriptures based on faith in the Scriptures and it is circular, we are susceptible to the same argumentation when arguing the KJV. They say "You are saying Erasmus was inspired; and the KJV translators." No, we accept by faith the promises God made to us, and so that when Erasmus continued the tradition of the church which lead to the KJV we see the hand of God in keeping His promise.

Reading the opposing side, however, without the proper background can be very convincing. I did some reading last night, and the guy was pretty good. He wasn't saying anything anti-Scriptural. They usually don't. He admitted we need preservation; and said we had it. This is the toughest crowd to beat. The guys who are closet to us, yet arrive at different conclusions.

The crux of the whole matter comes back to our interpretation of Scripture, and our need for certainty. What does it mean to say we have the words of God, and not just the ideas conveyed into some words? "To admit error in one part is to admit error in the whole." -- Turretin (paraphrase) This is really our trumpet. A logical fallacy committed by the other side. But that can be scary. Because logic is NOT the final authority when it comes to things of faith.

Can we admit we do not have the each specific word in English? Can we admit we do not have each specific word in Greek? Many prefer not to have thoughts of the original languages, but they must be considered.

I'm going to lay out some of their argument for a bit...I'll let you know when I am done with them.

***
God says He will preserve His Word.
History shows the MSS being changed and copied, and errors abounding.
Yet, through Providence, today we still have spread throughout all the MSS the perfect Word of God.
We can't know exactly which words are Gods, but it doesn't matter because of all the MSS, the differences are so few and so minuscule that in the end we DO still know what God was saying.
Nothing was lost.
Nothing of importance is under question. It is just differences of opinions on a fraction of the MSS.
***

I'm done with them...this is spawning another idea for an essay. Two options: the option of men deciding the truth, or trusting that we have it.

You see, the above argumentation leaves us with a whole pile of MSS evidence and the fact that somewhere inside it consists everything God has/had for us. This means we must rely on a committee of translators to decide where it is, and which words fit and which don't. It comes down to faith, again. They must have faith that the translators on their committees can find God's words, and share them with everyone else. We believe that God used the tradition of the TR/reformation, to leave us with God's words. If I can find a good way to write it up, and recall enough information about it, then maybe I will write it as a solid paper. Maybe it won't be long though. Maybe 1 page will be enough. It would be a good addendum.

That is my next project...because, as much reading as anyone can do on the subject, and as much disagreement as can be found, it seems that it MUST come down to one of the above options. Both of which leave the other saying "You are acting like the Catholic church." One can only be right, however.

I will of course follow up with that here when it is done.

because I lack imagination

You have probably noticed that my title skills are severely lacking. Notice also the link of the blog: unintriguing. Yeah.

Disclaimer from my last blog: I was informed, and I already knew that NOT everyone in our family holds to the previously mentioned view of the Bible issue. Perhaps I had forgotten last night, or perhaps I felt it easier to neglect the small minority for my purposes. (I hate saying that...it feels like I've been saying it a lot lating "my purposes." bleah.) But to be accurate, not everyone in our family does believe it. For whatever reason.

I have a lot on my mind again. I hope that I will be able to recall it all. As I worked out tonight I wasn't able to keep my counting going between sets because I was writing in my head. Of course, I lose it that way...that's why I need to write it down.

First, I have mentioned on more than one occasion (probably so much so that you guys are tired of it) how this is my online journal. Well, I have been rethinking that. I love writing about stuff. I also have been having the urge to enlarge my sphere. There is nothing that says this has to be my journal except me. Many of the other people that blog don't necessarily use theirs this way. So, something I am considering.

Another thought along these lines is to make another blog where I can write the things that I feel like writing. The problem is, that in my past I rarely write just something essayish. Instead, I write essay stuff mixed in with my life stuff. To upkeep two blogs is more than I want. At the same time, I would need to drop off all my stuff on eating tuna three times a day, etc. You guys will miss out on a lot. /rolleyes

Something else. Using my blog to vent/journal keep can lead me into excusing sin. It is easy for me to get angry, to gossip, and to just say I am clearing my head. I am not sure, but I think my last blog may have been wrong. Not all of it of course, but there may have been things that should not have been said. Perhaps not, but I need to be really careful and I need to not excuse myself because of my blog.

And as I was afraid of, I have lost most of anything else I wanted to blog about. There was quite a bit too. . .

Also, as my sphere increases a bit, I find that I must already keep more in. Things that I might say to most all of you in person, or hope you eventually find out, the sparse few I am unsure about prevent me from divulging. Not to say to any of you that I regret that you are here or reading. Just a fact.

The pastor called me back. We can't meet tomorrow, but he said that we can meet sometime after a church service or perhaps another Saturday if I really wanted. Maybe after a church service will have to do.

I'm in the MPR (multi-purpose room) instead of the library at school. Unfortunately, I don't have internet access there, and so I can't get on and enter grades and that is a big problem for me. I often did grading and lesson plans in the library. Now we are three days into the year and I am behind. I have lots of grading and it isn't all done. Even the stuff that is done is not in the computer because of the bad setup. I need to make sure I am disciplined. I hate working on the weekends, but if I can work hard this weekend I can be setup to not have to worry about this type of thing again this year (I figure).

Psych is on now. Good night. Sorry it wasn't as great a blog as it shoulda been.

always stuff

Lots to blog about. Let's get started.

I have been getting up early and so going to bed early.

So, there was a huge mess made by about 16 people who painted themselves blue and gold, and had to wash up, but they left the locker room in disarray. Well, I see Mrs. Coney getting the mop bucket out. This bothers me. First, a middle aged lady should not be mopping, and second she is the principal. She should NOT be doing that. So, I walk over, because I'm going to do the mopping. So, she tells me where she is going, and I start following her. Stupid me, I never think I should push the mop bucket as we walk over and through the gym. Well, Matt shows up and (thankfully) takes the mop and bucket from her, so she doesn't have to do that. Makes me feel like a moron though. This is like the second time in two weeks where I have offered and wanted to help and miss the most obvious. My wife suggests that I am too self-centered and I get focused on one thing and just overlook the obvious. It drives me crazy. It shouldn't have taken someone else for me to realize I should have taken the mop. I recognize that help is needed, but I'm so....frustrated with myself. It just makes me feel awful. =/ Something I need to work on. (I did end up mopping though...something to make me not feel wasted.)

I want to clarify that I mean no offense to anyone in the following. I am not looking down on anyone. These are thoughts and things that I have been having problems with lately.

I posted my TR/KJV post on Facebook and tagged a bunch of people because I figured it would be good for people to read. Anyway, this has started a bit of a dilemma for me. Due to my own error, I neglected to think through the facebook restrictions and my page is mostly open, and so people that I didn't know were able to read it. One such person who is anti-KJV and has been "rescued from the cult" saw fit to post multiple times. Now the point of my post was to inform those who might know some of the issue, or who have forgotten, or maybe never knew to begin with. It was not full of quotes and citations, and yet I think those who I knew and tagged would know that it wasn't just me spouting, but that I was just shortening for the sake of clarity and conciseness. I thought I made it clear. I posted just what I posted here. Maybe it was only clear in my mind, but alas.

Well, I offer this person at first politely to choose a different place to debate this. He refuses and repeats almost the exact thing. After some more back and forth I'm finding him rude and I'm frustrated (whether I should be or not, I have not yet decided as I rethink things). So, I realize what my initial error was and restrict access. He contacts me privately and we begin a brief discussion regarding our conduct, rather than on the issue.

At this time I get a reproof in an email regarding how I handled the situation. Some of it was very applicable. And I wonder if I did overreact. At the same time, I also think that my purpose should be taken into account. Regarding all of this, I am thinking it may be best for me to reopen access to my note, and allow and resume the debate there. I have not yet decided on this.

Now, on to the next part. How does someone more knowledgeable instruct others? As much as we are proud of the knowledge in our family it isn't that great.

Note: I have blogged previously about hearing people I respected saying things plain false, and quite illogical because they didn't appear to know what to say to that part of the opposition. I couldn't believe it. They didn't have an answer and so they said the opposing side made it up. It was fact and history. It really doesn't even add much opposition, they just thought it did.

The point is that we as individuals know far far less than we know as a group. We look at our group knowledge and feel great about it. Perhaps not, and perhaps I have a misshapen view of these things. There are lots of people in our family that would have a hard time proving something or arguing for/against something that they know we/they hold dogmatically. They aren't experienced enough; they haven't taken the time to learn it; they haven't been taught that issue specifically. What is the role of someone who knows those things?

I don't know near as much as Uncle Pete, or even younger generation Peter on the Bible issue. I also don't know if there is anyone else in the family who knows that much; I would also venture to guess (and I don't do this proudly) that I really don't know anyone else who knows the topic like I do after those two.

Note: There are too many things in the Scriptures to know them all. Even if you study one topic for your whole 3 score and 10, you will know all there is to know about that topic. My point is that we have much we can gain from one another. I would love to, and do immensely enjoy when its possible, delve the depths of knowledge/wisdom contained in each one in our family. I went up north for a graduation and spoke with a cousin briefly. I purposed to listen to what he would say, because I see him rarely and I wanted to gain wisdom from him. I didn't recognize it when it came out of his mouth, but within a few weeks I did. It made me happy. It was wise. Wisdom does not mean it must be profound; too often we skip over it, in my opinion.

Continuing, I know things you don't, and you know things I don't. Perhaps we don't all crave that knowledge the same way. But, we all must believe the truth. So here is the dilemma. We are going to use the Bible issue as our example. Everyone in our family believes it. But I wonder how many people really know why. And, in the end, even the ones that have more of a foundation than others, are basing much of it off 1. the Scripture they know, and 2. someone they trust. We all listen to someone we trust, and intuitively compare it to the Scripture we know. If it fits, than we keep it.

NOTE: Here my computer crashed and I lost stuff.

So, using the Bible issue as our example, we all believe this stuff. I doubt few have solid reasoning behind it besides, it is what the entire family believes. It isn't possible for everyone to know all the reasons. It isn't. It isn't required in Scripture either. But, it seems that in some ways, those that know more should be and are responsible for instructing those that are not. Does this just apply to parents and their kids? I don't think so. My paper was not forced upon anyone. They could skip it if they wanted. I just wanted to help if I could. But the reproof I received ignored this problem of ignorance. The people who don't know all the quotes and technical intricacies don't need to. They will not be writing books, or facing PhDs. What is the harm in writing what I wrote?

Now, the problem is that it was open for anyone. And it is true, that if I put something on the internet I should expect both positive and negative feedback AND be willing to discuss it. My problem was that I am/was willing to discuss it, but I just didn't want to on my wall. Was that not appropriate?

Note: I am eating a cold can of salmon mixed with cold white rice. Not the best. . .but, I may also eat some Mac and Cheese when my wife is done making it. heheheh.

We that don't know things, need others to tell us. Not to cram it down our throats; not to force it upon us; but to be willing and offer to help. It is a failure when those that do know things abandon those that do not because they see them as "ignorant" and "uninformed." Because they don't have the time they are viewed as lazy. When they try to convey what they do know, the more learned immediately take the other side, because they want to point out how insufficient and weak the knowledge of the other is. AUGHS! This drives me insane. Those that don't have the time/knowledge aren't trying to debate. They want to learn. Those attempting to do the teaching aren't claiming omniscience. They are just trying to help. So, don't jump in and pick apart these arguments and try to point out all the flaws. That is counter-productive. There is a time and place to pick apart, and help people realize their weaknesses. But if you can't recognize when that is, you best keep your mouth shut, because more often than not people just want to learn and be treated as real people with some respect.

I honestly don't claim omniscience. I learn something all the time. I am bothered by how much sin and foolishness that I find in my life. I didn't mean to insult anyone by trying to analyze people's knowledge, and estimating. I could be far off on all of it. I often do speak in fact. I am trying to temper my bluntness when it is negative, but as Matt said last time I did that "you mean, he is wrong?" And yeah, he is/was. Anyway, there is my blog.

I do always appreciate your thoughts.

Congratulations to my brother and his wife!! Great news; I was so happy to hear it!

My wife is the best. She is amazing, patient, and kind. I couldn't/wouldn't be who I am without her. Thanks darling, love you!

2009

So, it is 2009 and I have already out blogged 2008, but I blogged over 100 times in 2007. I don't know if I can beat that. I'm not on track to do so. I am nearing 30, but it is nearing the end of August. It doesn't help that I can't blog during After School Care. That would be my traditional blogging time. I thrive on getting paid to blog.

Life is life. There is not much else to say. FB/Twitter do not hold enough space in their little updates to convey what I feel. Can a blog do better? Perhaps, after much rambling.

I have been pretty cynical and perfectionist lately. Not about a lot of stuff that has no real set standard, but about stuff that does have meaning...and that mostly boils down to grammar and words. Try this one: "I enjoy Sundays after church." Yeah, but that just makes me wonder if you don't like church. "Can you guess . . . ?" Yes, or no, and since most of us are capable, then yes. Don't guess; we weren't asked to do that.

Spelling mistakes everyone makes...but they shouldn't; seems more so when they are the head of the English department and giving a handout to the entire upper school, but again, it happens. I don't teach English, so I shouldn't criticize. Too late I guess.

Truth project might get moved to a Thursday. Don't hold your breath, but it might. For those who were unaware, the Truth Project was scheduled 3:30 on Mondays. That conflicted with my After School Care. The one in January was scheduled for Wednesdays. Yeah, I still go to church on Wednesday. Apparently Idlewild has done something with their Wednesday services that meant the school could do this.

(I will forgo the note about "Idle" "wild" tonight...I need to get to bed soon. Yes, I understand the history, but still, it could warrant a note if I had the time.)

So, there were jokes about me losing my job next year since I won't be going to either of those. My principle made it clear today that it didn't matter how long you had been saved, or how smart you were, you were expected to go. I asked someone that was currently going how it was and he said "simple." He said that the discussion afterward was pretty good. But what that means I think I have discussed enough before. Besides, people tend to be abrasive to the person that acts like he is right, and knows he is right. It generally doesn't make any difference if he really is or not, they just go to auto-oppose. Just because I know I'm right doesn't make me less right. . .and I don't want to do this thing. Of course, she knew I was going to sign up and its on Wednesday anyway and I spoke to her about it, so if it doesn't change then next year she will really really encourage me to do it. /grin

"On purpose" AND "By accident" NOT "By purpose" AND NOT "On accident"

"Raise animals" AND "Bring up children" DO NOT "Raise children."

Technically, this means you can "raise 'kids.'" But really, that just gets messy.

I suppose that there are others, that I commit regularly. I apologize. Let me know, too. I find that I am comma happy sometimes. And I use ellipses far too often. But that is my conversational style of writing -- meh.

Have I gone through all those before? Probably.

School starts in the morning. I'm scared and nervous. I am still missing a book, and I don't have a computer. On top of it all, I have extra responsibilities that are new to me that will leech my time. Yet, here is where God put me, and I better to what I do with all my might.

My wife was a big help with decorating my room. My sister-in-law helped too. Thanks so much!

No news from MBBC. How am I supposed to finish my MA this way?

Time to go. Goodnight.

more and more

Well, when I blogged this afternoon it wasn't long since I needed a nap. But here I go again. Back to work tomorrow. Different after being off for so long.

I love writing about things that matter. I love having the time and resources to research those things, and convey them to others. I wonder if I love it so much because I don't have an unlimited amount of either time or resources. When I had time off work this summer I was on vacation and around places, and didn't have access to lots of resources. Anyway, the thought there is that perhaps I would become tired and exhausted from doing it if it is all I did.

What type of occupation would I find enjoyable all the time? I don't think it is teaching. As I prep for this year, I don't think I am made to be a teacher. What that means for me and my family I don't know.

Side note: Are you familiar with the feeling of disgust at the sound of someones voice? You hear it and you just start to feel all the feelings you associate with it? Even if none of those should logically be present at the moment. It just drives me crazy.

I like to write. I greatly enjoyed writing up my last long blog. I enjoy spending time thinking through those things. There is comfort for me in having things completely settled in my own mind and not having to depend on someone else. I have seen empty headed-people soak up like a sponge whatever they heard. I don't want to be like that. I'm not like that. But in its place I questions what I hear. I need to have a deep-seeded trust in that person but what they say must also be grounded in the principles I already know to be true.

I like to know how things work together. When I was reading my Apologetics book, he mentioned that in his first edition he thought every Christian should read a book like that. Whatever edition I had he mentioned that this is not the case. He wrote of two different sets of people: one basically was the one that had a hard time believing anything that could not be proved, so for example, why should we believe the Bible? We need to prove its necessity and validity without using it before we can rely on it. My real life example is concerning the Bible issue. I know people who don't really have a firm grasp on the subject and yet cling to it even arguing against those that are have a better grasp. These don't have the time or resources to actually study the issue and so they go on what they have heard from those they trust. The other group is the group that needs to have every nuance explained to them and examined before they accept anything.

I tend to believe that I am of the second group. I like to have things researched out and examined. I think that I need to make sure I utilize myself wisely this year. I have a lot I would like to accomplish, and potential I see in myself. I don't know what God has for me. I don't. I wish I did. I wish I knew that if I make it through the next 1, 2, 3, or even 5-10 years that I would achieve my goal. But, no, there is no guarantee. The guarantee is that God will provide for me and mine. He will work everything out for our good. There is no occupational guarantee. There is no guarantee of blessings in a job that I will enjoy for the rest of my life.

There is none of that. Calvin hated Geneva. He said he wished himself dead 100 times a day, yet he would not leave because that is what God had for him. Yet, the things he did enjoy, he did while there. He wrote tons and tons. His Institutes achieved their final form while there. He wrote several commentaries, and wrote to several kings, queens, and other royalty. He was brilliant. I am not Calvin however. However much I desire such a mind; I am thankful for what I have.

I am thankful for my wife. Through all these thoughts and struggles within me she has been a great support. She is willing to follow me what/where-ever God will send us. She has always encouraged me, and I love her dearly.

Then I have been thinking about my church situation which I blogged about briefly earlier. We heard 18 stanzas of something again tonight. So much stuff wrong here, and yet some stuff right, and it seems like God has lead us here in some way. Yet, I don't know. I can't know. . . . . . . . . . . .AUGHAUAHUGAUHAHUGA! /sigh. Ok. So I finally became facebook friends with some of the people at the church. My profile states that I'm a Calvinist. So, there it is. My sphere of influence has been enlarged by me becoming acquainted with the people here at the church, yet, now I have more opportunity to be shunned and viewed as a heretic.

I have heard that it is very possible that an Armenian pastor will not even let me be an usher, nor serve in the church in any way. That would stink.

I thought about starting my own church again. My wife vetod that idea. Which makes sense since I am working 11 hour days and she is pregnant. When would I canvass? When would I prep messages? Where would we hold church? What would I do for music? Yet, the idea is there again.

I have been thinking about writing a commentary this semester. Depending on how classes go and what I can take and how much work it involves I may try to get one done. I think I can do it. With lots of work it should be solid. I need a good book to do. I was thinking Galatians for various reasons.

Anyway, it is time for me to go to bed now. Goodnight.

update

School starts Wednesday.

I saw District 9 last night with Matt. It was good. Tons of swearing though. I talked to Kaylynn afterward and decided that we need to get a clearplay. I have mentioned them before, but it just makes things so much easier, especially considering the fact that we are going to be parents soon. Oh yeah, if any of you read this, but don't keep in touch any other way, we are expecting! =D

I am in a huge dilemma with church again. I understand the need to join myself to a local church. It has been weighing on me for some time. We look and look. We have been to several and thought we had the one a few times. Now we are traveling 40-45 minutes to church where he is Armenian, has an erroneous view of Baptist history, believes very very strongly on the dichotomy or trichotomy of humans (I don't remember which), tends to talk down about Protestants, and doesn't believe in the universal church. Some of these things are very minor, except that the pastor feels the need to hammer everything that may be controversial and so we get a 10 min shpeel on it. We were really thinking of joining. We were going to by now. I think I should sit down and talk to him about some of these things...because I don't want to join if he won't let me serve in any way. I want to preach/teach, and at the very least I want to usher. . .oh well.

I need to take a nap now.

TR/KJV argument. . .as clearly as I have ever done

I had recently been having some conversations with some people and one of them resulted in me volunteering to write some information up on the TR/KJV issue, and they affirming they would read it. So today I sat and wrote for several hours. My goal was to try to summarize the necessary points of our argument as much as possible. I did not dive into every little detail, nor did I quote. As it stands it is a summary. Forgive the length, this one is almost 8 pages.

This is quite a task I am attempting to undertake here. To summarize this position may be able to be done, but often the main points make little sense without the background. Sometimes this background is simple, and sometimes it covers all of church history. I will try to keep the main points obvious, while only including the necessary information. There will of course be much remaining, that may need to be covered if you have questions, or if you are aware of certain arguments raised against the position. Please do not hesitate to ask anything. I should add that I do have references and quotes for almost everything here. It would have extended this by several pages. If you are curious about quotes on something in particular please let me know. I do not at this time have a simple compilation of all quotes, so I cannot simply add that. Perhaps I will one day.

So, the end argument is that the KJB is the Word of God for English speaking people. By saying this we are saying that we have in our possession the perfect inspired transcendent Word of God. Those who disagree do not think it is possible to have the perfect inspired Word (though they may not admit that).

This is where the problem comes. If we do not have God’s Word, then we are of all men most miserable. We must have the Word of God, or everything we do is in vain. If we don’t we should eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die. This is the argument for certainty. There are hosts of quotes to say that certainty is not something new to the church, but that the church has always required certainty. It seems logical and reasonable to me that we must have certainty without citing any of the quotes. If we admit there may be error in part of the Scripture, than we cannot be 100% sure that there is not error elsewhere. So, we must have certainty. Again, the other side disagrees. Recognizing the need for certainty is our first step.

The second step is to correctly understand God’s Word. What we mean by this is the many verses pertaining to preservation. No matter what we ever talk about or argue, we must always start with proper exegesis of the Scripture. This is the second step. Here is one of the most difficult parts. It is like arguing with an Arminian about Calvinism and referencing foreknowledge. No matter how right you are on the proper definition they always say it means something else. The Scriptures that we use to support preservation have for a 100 years been twisted so that anyone even slightly anti-KJV will say “That just means – .“ Here is a list of Scripture: 2 Tim. 3:16; Ps. 12:6, 7; 19:8, 9; Heb. 6:18; Matt. 5:18; 1 Peter 1:25; John 17:17. Without going through each verse what you need to know is that we have to interpret these verses understanding that they were written to the people of that day and those people would have expected the words to mean what they say. These verses point to always having God’s inspired inerrant Word here among the church, i.e. preservation. That these verses support the preservation of the perfect Word of God has been the position held for centuries down through the church.

The third step is arguing for the TR. Our argument is not based in the KJV. Our argument goes back centuries, and then the only logical conclusion is the KJV. We can’t start with it; we end with it. Where do we go next then? In order to understand what we must now argue, we must understand the other possibilities. When we argue for certainty, the other possibility is uncertainty. When we argue for the Textus Receptus (TR), the other possibilities are what we call the critical text and the majority text. We must further understand where these come from.

Brief History.

Previous to Christ, around the 3^rd-1^st centuries, the Hebrew OT was translated into Greek. It is said that it was done by 70 men, and thus the Septuagint is abbreviated the LXX.

Recall that when the epistles, gospels, etc. were written they were not instantly in every church. They had to be passed from church to church and copied from page to page as the parchment began to wear thin, and as more churches and individuals wanted their own copies. Copies happened. People made copies of copies. The canon (the 27 books of the NT) was not closed, and people were unsure what was Scripture and what was not. (This is a different history lesson entirely.) However, by 397 AD, the canon was closed. God had lead in the church to ensure that the apocryphal books were rejected, along with other similar titles, and God had also made certain that the 27 books were settled. While the Scriptures were now together, they still continued to be copied. Somewhere around the 5^th century, Rome commissioned the Latin Vulgate (Also known as Jerome’s Vulgate). This was to be the Bible of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) for the next thousand years and the reformers wrote many things against it.

The copies remained however in libraries. It was very rare to find entire copies of the Scriptures, but rather pieces and fragments were found of different books, verses, and passages (called Papyri, Uncials, and Minuscules).

As early as 640 AD people were attempting to translate parts of the Scriptures into English. The first well-known complete translation was in the 14^th century by John Wycliffe. Wycliffe’s bible appeared in two editions. Tyndale’s translation in the 16^th century differed from Wycliffe in that he used the Hebrew and Greek texts, and used the Latin to help. In all likelihood, he also probably used/referred to Wycliffe’s translation as well. This could probably be assumed for most translators during this time. After the Tyndale 1526 came the “Coverdale” 1535, the “Matthews” 1537, the “Great” 1539, the “Geneva” (first divided into verses) 1560, the “Bishop’s” 1568, and the “King James” 1611. These translations continued to follow much the same MSS as the previous. Unlike today where each version sits on the shelf next to each other, the previous was removed as the latter was accepted by the church as the authentic Word of God.

We must also understand that this is the same period that ends the dark age. This is the time frame which hosted great men like Luther, Zwingli, Huss, and Calvin. Luther posted his 95 theses in 1517. As the Reformation swept over all Europe, the need and desire for the Scriptures in the common tongue was understood and catered too. Thus we have these translations moving from the false piety of the Catholic church and back to the Greek texts for their translation into the English language.

It was during this time of translations that MSS were being collected and catalogued for the purpose of assembling a complete Greek text. This was not an easy process. Communication was immensely limited, and safe transportation of these MSS was neither quick nor easy.

Erasmus was one such person attempting to collate a Greek text. Erasmus was a Catholic who believed in reforming the church from within and so he never left. He was a scholar and was well learned. He mastered both Latin and Greek and was determined to provide a new Latin translation. When he published it however, it included the Greek translation alongside his Latin work. When Erasmus was missing pieces of either Greek or Latin from his sources, he would go to the other to find the pieces in that language and transfer them over. Thus, his two languages published together were in agreement, and though written in Greek and Latin their respective basis was not pure Greek nor pure Latin. It was his second edition that Martin Luther used to translate the Scriptures into German. It was his third edition that Tyndale used to translate into English. The 3^rd edition was also the basis of another Greek Text: the 1550 Robert Stephanus edition. This was the text used by the Geneva and King James Bibles. It is Erasmus’ last edition that is often referred to as the TR.

Theodore Beza, who studied under Calvin and assumed his role in Geneva when Calvin passed away also published a Greek text in 1565. This text was also indebted to Erasmus’ editions. After this time period, it was not until the 1880’s that another prominent Greek text appeared. Several continued to gather MSS and translate, but nothing prominent was published until after the Enlightenment.

The extant (=known existing) MSS are categorized based on their family type. Today we see three main family types: the Byzantine, the Alexandrian, and the Western. We hear the most regarding the first two. In brief, the Byzantine family contains those texts found within the byzantine empire. The text-type and location where they were found groups them together. It is the same for the Alexandrian family: they contain the Alexandrian text-type and were generally found near Alexandria. The majority of all extant MSS are from the Byzantine family. There are around 5000+ pieces from this family. These could be anything from a phrase to entire books, or multiple books. These are often dated from the 5^th to the 12^th centuries.

The Alexandrian family is considerable smaller. The force behind the Alexandrian family is that the 2 main MSS both supposedly date to around 400 BC, and they contain very full texts, rather than pieces. The early dating of these MSS causes some to place much more emphasis on them than on the majority. Among these are the texts found in a monastery in a burn-barrel. There is debate over their value. One side claims that they are extremely valuable, and the other says they were in the burn-barrel for a reason. The discussion further breaks down in that the one who found them (Constantin von Tischendorf) originally claimed they were in the trash. This may have been because they were worthless or he was lying to excuse his sudden possession of them. Or they were not in the trash at all, as his son later claimed in his father’s biography. Tischendorf himself is reported as saying that the MSS. contained 15,000 changes made by contemporary or later hands. This should discredit it from having any true significance.

I present this history not for your memorization but rather for your understanding. These things need to be somewhat familiar to your mind as we continue our argument. I previously mentioned three text options when choosing a Greek text: the TR, the majority text, and the critical text (CT). The TR is that tradition that ended with the Greek text of Erasmus/Stephanus/Beza and the English text of the King James Bible. It should be mentioned that this text did not arise from pure Greek MSS support, but also some Latin. It contains readings that do not appear to be well supported. It is from this Greek Text tradition that the KJB is translated. The KJB is the only Bible today translated from this Greek Text.

The majority text is held by a minority who think that both other sides have valid points. Instead of accepting the few readings in the TR that are less obvious, or have Latin support, they opt for a text that is completely among the Byzantine family. This “text” however does not exist. Two men, Hodges and Farstad, attempted to compile a majority text. However, the MSS they worked with to complete this text came mostly from one individual. Further, this portion they used was only a small portion of the Byzantine family, and they only cited a small portion of what they had access too. Their Greek text was published with the admission that it was incomplete and not a true majority. It was compiled from a fraction of a fraction of all extant Byzantine MSS. Farstad was on the committee translating the NKJV and he was impacted by his previous work. The NKJV is the closest thing to a modern version translated from this supposed Majority text. This position is generally thought to be “safe.” It avoids many of the problems the CT guys point out about the TR position and it makes most TR guys happy because it is closer to them than the CT. Recall however that we started with the necessity for certainty. With no true majority reading, we have no true certainty, even supposing that this argument had weight.

The critical text is that which came about (through a similar process) but which originated from the 1880 Greek text of Westcott and Hort. Among the first English translations from this text was the English Revised Version in 1901.

Our argument for the TR at this point is rather simple. We understand we need certainty. We know that Scripture promises that we will have God’s perfect transcendent Word for us to live by. Lastly, we follow the Holy Spirit guided church as it searched for the Word of God. God uses human means. He did so in the assembly of the canon after the writing of the NT. He did so in bringing the Reformation and their emphasis on returning to the Scriptures to Europe. It was here that the church recognized the need for it to be in the common tongue and so it was here that the church looked for and sought out the Word of God. The brilliant “scholars” of the Reformation’s day were pastors called of God to minister. How did they know which MSS to use, and which to ignore? God worked in much the same way of the collecting of the canon. This resulted in a text which was used to translate. Another text and another were published. Each one correcting the mistakes of the past text. The Holy Spirit led the bride of Christ accepting each in turn until the TR and the King James Version. After this however, there was not another publicly and universally accepted Greek text, nor an English version. Today, there are over a dozen versions sitting alongside each other and not one has obtained widespread public and undisputable acceptance among the Holy Spirit lead church. These are the positive reasons we argue for the TR, and come to the conclusion of the KJV. We have a host of negative reasons against the CT as well; this is our last step.

There are striking differences between the CT and the TR. The CT as known today began in the 1800’s and has continued changing and evolving. The CT has been in development for over 100 years and does not have a final form. Nor does the current CT as of yet have an English version translated from it. While the TR tradition began in the rise of the Reformation and the brilliant minds that accompanied it, the CT arose from the Enlightenment. The mindset of the Enlightenment was that man was the measure for all things. It was a turning from the Scriptures rather than too them. The Enlightenment rejected inspiration and divinity. The standard of faith is recorded by Kant as that which man’s reason finds morally profitable. It was this environment which fostered Westcott and Hort.

Westcott and Hort (hereafter WH) published their Greek text in 1881. This was the first popular critical text. WH put great stock in Sinaiticus (one of the Alexandrian texts; claimed to be found in the trash), and especially Vaticanus (MSS contained in the Vatican library). These two MSS were judged as the best MSS and their readings were taken above others – primarily Vaticanus. While the CT has evolved today so that the current version is not near as blatant in its dismissal of the previous Holy Spirit guided tradition, it follows strongly in WH footsteps. Two reasons drive us to further analyze these men. 1. This tradition began with WH. 2. They abandoned the church tradition of the previous 300 years.

While none of the men through the TR tradition were perfect nor inspired, it can be seen through history how God used each to lead the church to the acceptance of the TR text. WH however called the TR a “corrupt text.” They set the standard for preferring two MSS over 1,000’s. They valued the text of the RCC over the text of the Reformation. (This is completely opposite to that of the Reformation which took the church away from the heresy of the RCC and towards the Scriptures.) Further, these men were not orthodox and could easily be labeled heretics. Note the following beliefs drawn from their own writings:

They believed in and agreed with:

1. Baptismal Regeneration

2. Necessity of the Sacraments

3. Mary Worship

4. Purgatory

5. Prayers for the dead

6. Communism

7. Darwin

They did not believe in:

1. Literal Heaven

2. Literal 2^nd coming of Christ

3. Literal 1,000 year reign of Christ on Earth

4. Reality of Angles

5. The oneness of the Trinity

6. Literal Devil

7. Soul’s existence apart from the body.

8. Power of the atonement

9. Inspiration of Scripture

These are the men with whom the CT position originated. Those that follow in their path have problems of their own.

History of the CT:

The CT path following WH includes the publication of several other Greek texts: Tischendorf’s text (containing almost entirely Sinaiticus, published prior to WH), and the popular Nestle text in 1898. Nestle’s text would undergo 27 editions and would be the main underlying text for almost every new English translation. Nestle published his edition using Tischendorf’s, WH, and other less-well-known text. The 13^th edition was published by his son in 1927 using the same texts for its basis. When considering further editions Nestle enlisted the help of Kurt Aland who would then make the 26-27 editions “Nestle-Aland.” Aland also happened to be on the committee of the United Bible Society (UBS). The first Bible society in the early 1800’s supported the RCC. As the Bible societies around the world joined to form the UBS, the support and participation of the RCC continued. The UBS produced 4 editions of a Greek text to be used for translating the Gospel around the world. Edition 3 and 4 are exact replicas of the Nestle-Aland 26 and 27. The only differences are their apparatus. The texts are identical.

Though the UBS may have seemed to some to have started with good intentions, it was involved with heretical views from the first. Constantly involving the RCC in each committee and decision, the UBS extended farther by inviting “representatives from 46 different denominations, including Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and even a Christian Scientist!” – Plains Baptist Challenger, Sept. 1982. The goal of the UBS was to “prepare a ‘common text’ of the Bible in the original languages, acceptable to all Churches, including Roman Catholics; and to explore the possibility of preparing a ‘common translation’ in certain languages, which could be used by Protestants and Roman Catholics alike.” – Andrew Brown, The Word of God among All Nations, p. 122).

There is no current English version from this text; every English translation besides the NKJV since the KJV has however been based on the CT tradition begun by WH. In the process of creating these texts the translators admit that they will not come to a perfect text but it will hopefully just be better than before. In creating an English translation the do not rely on one published Greek text but rather upon multiple. Even with all this work towards a solid Greek text, no English Bible has been translated from it.

We have noted then that the CT tradition began in a time of departure from the truth. It was started by heretics who denied the doctrine of inspiration. It has continued by one of the most ecumenical groups whose published goal has always been ecumenical acceptance. There is no English version that is based solely on this text. The Holy Spirit lead church has not publicly and universally left the TR for any new Greek text. Rather, the influx of multiple Greek texts and English versions has seen the almost universal weakening of the church, doubt in the authority of Scriptures, the support of Evolution, and the dismissal of God from our nation. It has witnessed pastors standing in the pulpit and throwing their Bible away since it is no longer relevant nor needed.

What I have not covered are the arguments against the KJV being perfect. Often those are the arguments raised, and they do take up quite some space. They include trouble accepting the work of the KJV translators without applying to them the doctrine of inspiration (which we don’t). These things should be handled similar to any unsaved person claiming problems with the Gospels or different numbers recorded dying at such-and-such battle. We begin those thoughts with the truth from God’s Word that it is accurate and inerrant. Then we look at the “difficulties” and answer them as best we can. We do not admit of error because God says it is not. Whether we can explain it thoroughly enough is not a test of God’s truth. The same applies to the KJV argument. Just because one word may see inaccurate to someone, does not mean we throw out our previous argumentation. We begin with the conclusion we have reached that we have the inerrant Word of God and then answer the translation issue accordingly: never giving up our ground.

As we have covered quite a bit, I have included an outline of the main points as well as tried to highlight those things that are necessary to the argument

1. Need for Certainty.

2. Proper Exegesis of Scriptures leads us to the doctrine of Preservation.

3. 3 texts possible: TR, Majority, and CT; Majority text not a viable option.

4. We fight for the TR

It was the accepted Greek text as seen in the Holy Spirit guided Church.

The tradition began in the glory of the Reformation;

The theme of the Reformation was by grace alone, though faith alone, in Christ alone.

The Reformation was lead by Pastors who called the church back to the Scriptures.

This tradition leads us to the KJB in English.

5. We fight against the new tradition.

The tradition began under the thinking of the Enlightenment.

Man is the measure.

Inspiration and divinity are nonexistent.

WH were heretics; they introduced this tradition; they didn’t even believe in inspiration.

Main MSS of this tradition found under questionable circumstances; or in the heart of the RCC.

WH completely discarded the TR tradition. The tradition accepted by the chuch for over 300 years they called “corrupt.”

Ecumenical tradition.

Translation committees providing the new Text to the world are full of apostasy. They are ecumenical and are bringing all of “Christianity” back to Rome.

The scholars of today are translators who sit on committees, rather than men called of God to oversee His flock.

forgot

All of that and I forgot to mention that I took a worldview quiz I had read about in an article. The guy who wrote the article teaches at a Christian college (some kind) and failed the test with the result of socialism. I figured I might as well take it. I did, and I scored extremely well: 166 out of 174, or something. 95%. So, they sent me to this other page where I could print out a certificate saying I had a Christian Worldview. I saved it so I can print it out when I get to school and have access to a printer. It wasn't hard. Unfortunately, I think I may have misplaced that link too....not very good of me lately. Let me see if I can find it.

http://www.worldviewweekend.com/test/register.php

You have to give your email and name and stuff. It claims it takes like 30-45 minutes, but it didn't take me that long. Most of the questions don't require a lot of thought imo. Anyway, if you want a certificate from this supposedly reputable organization then take the test. I think you only need a 75% to get it. . .

i want to blog -- be warned, this is 6 pages long

I want to blog. Every now and then I have strands of thought worth blogging about, but they don't last long. It isn't as if I have been extra busy. I haven't.

NOTE: Now that I see this is 6 pages long I have notated good places to stop for a break. Aren't I a nice guy? :)

One of my only and most enjoyable activities of late has been working out. Mike was right. He told me once if I really worked out for several months I wouldn't want to stop. I had a hard time accepting that at first since I had worked out on and off for several years, but this past year at the gym really helped. Of course, maybe I also grew up some and realized that anything worth doing takes perseverance and diligence. And then I decided I wanted this, and so I worked towards it....could be.

I really admired the way my sister had been reading through the NT and decided it was foolish of me not to be spending a good amount of time in the Bible. Doesn't matter if I have a PhD, an MA, or a ThM. God doesn't require those things. God does require that we know Him. That we live for Him. I have been trying for 10 chapters a day. Not so grand a goal perhaps, but a good one for me. That is reading the entire Bible twice in a little under a year. I would be very pleased if I kept it up a year. Though reading the Bible through in a year was a good habit I had during my youth group years, it is not one I held onto long after. And I have never held a more advanced schedule. I remember my mom reading throught the Bible twice a year when I was a kid. That, and similar memories are good memories. They speak of Christian character being acted out, and not just preached to us. That is something I greatly appreciate from my memory.

I was thinking the other day, and my parents have always been working to stay in shape as well. Whether it was dumbbells in the corner of the living room, VHS exercise tapes, Tae Bo, or walking, they have always been keeping themselves healthy. A good example for me. It is hard to me to make myself walk. I am honestly trying to find a good time to walk.

It is such a contrast to other people and other families. My parents regularly watching their diets. Exercising. Doing devotions. Working on the house. Family devotions. Things I know that are right and do by habit; I find the reason for doing them in my parents doing them.

I have a dilemma. Based on my weight and how hard I have been working out, I should be consuming around 170-200g or protein a day. That is a lot of protein. I eat two eggs in the morning = 14. 2 cans of tuna throughout the day = 52. 2 scoops of whey = 52. That is only 118. I bought cottage cheese, but I cannot make myself eat it. I really wished I liked it. It looks fine, I just cannot eat it. So, I got the recipe from my mom for the green salad and I'm going to try that. That is 12g before bed. Milk is 8g if I make myself take a glass. I suppose if I add one more scoop of whey that puts me at around 164. Another scoop would put me at 190. Not too shabby if I can get that. However, three scoops of whey a day is more than I currently budgeted. It was hard for me to budget 2 scoops, since last year I was taking 1. The tuna comes out to be about the same price as the whey (per gram of protein), and Milk is really close. Milk is always in the house, and is a necessity. Last year I maybe had a glass a month...maybe. If I took one every day, that would certainly make us run out of milk faster. Of course, there is always actual dinner. That is never a consistent number of grams, but I do get protein through ground beef or chicken, etc. Thus, my dilemma. Yeah, its a big one.

School is starting soon. Monday I have a meeting. Then teacher orientation stuff starts Wednesday. I have grand plans of getting ahead so that I am ultra prepared material-wise and I only have to really worry about the kids. That is the way it should be, but HA! So, I praying towards that end, so that it is not just my foolish hopes, but that I might actually put work towards them.

I currently have four books under my belt. I plan on finishing the 5th tomorrow/Friday.

Warbreaker -- downloaded version. Good book. Thanks to Phil for the recommendation.
The Name of the Wind -- again. Still a great book. No real news on the 2nd. I follow him on FB now though.
Christian Apologetics -- Interesting. Higher thinking than I am used to. Good for me.
Writing with Style -- One of the few books I kept from College that was not Math or computers. Good book, and maybe one of these days I will summarize the chapter on common writing myths that I found interesting.
Portrait of Calvin -- Downloaded this one. More than halfway through. Not a long book, but since Calvin was honestly such a huge influence on life as we know it, I figured I should read something of his life. Already he has proven to be a genius beyond my ability -- about what I expected. I apologize that I do not have the exact link. It was republished from the Desiring God website. I'm sure a search will bring it up.

Not the 5 books I was planning on reading, but still I'm happy with it. I did make it through 250 pages of "Things to Come" by Pentacost. A must read on dispensationalism from what I hear, and the first 3rd proved as much. I started (about 1 chapter) "Christ of the Covenants" (the must read on covenantal theology) but I was quickly dissuaded by the distinctions he started with between covenants and testaments. I had the feeling the beginning was setting up the entire book, and it would have required a lot of extra reading/research in the first chapter for me to be able to disprove his later conclusions. I wasn't feeling up to it.

I read an article by a pastor and seminary president that suggested every pastor should be reading at least one book a week. He implied it was necessary. This of course makes my 5 books in a summer not that great, but I am still happy about it at the moment.

BREAK POINT -- get a drink and stretch

I checked my blog a little back and realized I left some things hanging. I did not buy the protein/creatine I had talked about that was so expensive. After two days and hours of reading I decided against it. Protein being the most important I will continue buying my walmart brand of that. I bought some supposedly pure creatine that lots and lots of people said was good, just nothing added to it. It was about the cheaper than what I get at walmart, so that was cool. I also bought some NO Xplode. That is new to me. I was taking (again) walmart NO, but not noticing what I am noticing now. I also got some glutamine, and dextrose. Those were quite cheap, and since I was ordering figured I would throw them in. I do notice the pump lasting, which is great. I have been upping weight since I've been back. This is my third week. I would expect to up at least three weeks anyway, since I came back guessing weight to use. After two months off, I wasn't going to throw what I had been repping on. I am supersetting a lot right now. I find that I get more or the same amount of total exercises in in less time. I was often pressing over an hour last year. This year an hour is my long day. That is good since my schedule is so tight already.

I will have to mix it up some time. They say I need to confuse my muscles, and that means switching it up. I like what I'm doing now, but I need to make sure I swap things in a month or so. They also say I should cycle Creatine. That I am unsure about but when I run out of everything near the end of Sept I plan on taking Oct off taking anything but protein. Well, that is the plan. We will see what happens.

I worked on Mike's website some more. I would have done more sooner, but I was told I was creating a place holder and someone else would have a more professional one up in two weeks. That would have been almost three weeks ago. So, I went back to work on it and got a system so Mike/Em could login and change the things they wanted changing without having to email me about it. Good for me; better for them. I woulda hated to have to do it, but they were patient and didn't put any pressure on or anything. They are currently at 389 in case you haven't heard. The signatures now are for him to run as Rebuplican. He thinks it will work better this way. From the little I know, this sounds better to me too.

I'm losing weight again, but not enough for me. From everything I know about me and have read about others, it seems that the hardest weight to lose is that around my lower abs...my belly fat. I took "before" measurements, but forgot to weigh myself. Now if I do it, I will definitely be lower as I can see the difference, but I still need to to give myself some kind of idea where I am.

I haven't had the MTG bite me to get me wanting to build any decks. It is harder when I have used them more recently. Maybe in a few months I will go through and take apart a few of my loser decks.

Stopped in my old guild's website because it was bookmarked and I was cleaning my bookmarks out. Not much going on. Almost commented on a thread, but decided against it.

My char is probably still pretty solid. I was mostly purple with a few blues before I left with epic mount....low/no gold though. My friend has about 17k on his account. He is also under level 50. He ran the AH. I don't want to play though....that's good. Let's hope it stays that way.

I need to have a desire to read. That is hard. If I have a reason, then that is easy. I was working on the website and that was something that needed to be done and I spent a few days reading, watching tutorials, etc. I wanted to learn about Calvin and so I started reading this biography. But when I don't have that desire, then I look for stupid stuff to occupy me. I almost bought Kingdom hearts 2. If I had a PS2 memory card I may have....don't know where I lost mine, but it saved me $20. Instead, I played Jardinains on easy (because I forgot to change the setting and didnt remember till I was in the 30s) and it was soooo slow. On lvl 51 with 15 lives and I left it paused. I will go back sometime in another year or so and keep going.....maybe.

We went out for Matt's b-day last week. Kobe steakhouse. While others fell prey to the yummy-yummy sauce, I escaped unscathed. It was good though. I always hesitate to get shrimp because I am sure I will not like it. I tried it and it was ok, but I will go with steak next time. It was good steak. I am not a steak eater...and it was good.

I read that pasta fell into the good carb category and thus, I have been eating my tuna in pasta rather than white bread which fell into the worst carb category. However, tuna salad gets dry rather easily. In order to keep it a delicacy instead of a dry meal, you need to ensure plenty of mayo. That of course is on the list of bad food. Lately the salad has been too dry, but its better for me that way, and the bread was never that good anyway. The other problem is the proper amount of noodle to tuna ratio. Mom always made the salad with about 1 can tuna / 2 cups noodles (I think). I made mine with 1:1. But looking at the cost and the carb/calorie/protein ratio, I need 4 can:1 cup. That is an off ratio and makes for mostly forks full of tuna with a few noodles every now and then. But I'm losing weight....life is full of sacrifices. heh.

I have budgeted to pay off all my debt and finish my classes this year. Lord permitting we should be able to do that. Of course it leaves us in about the same place as we were last year living wise. It wasn't bad, but it wasn't relaxed either. We were content and so will continue to pray for contentment. It is wonderful.

Then next year we have to wonder what we are doing. Do we look for a house? Well, we aren't putting any money away for a down payment this year, so we probably can't. What if we didn't pay off the debt, put all the money away and then bought a house next year? The lower monthly payment for living would mean we could easily pay off the debt next year. maybe. Lots of variables and things to consider.

LAST BREAK -- you can do it, go go go!

I try to pray for all of you. I know I don't call or write as often as I can, but everyone I can imagine reading this I try to keep in my prayers.

One thing that has been on my mind recently, and then even more so as I read this biography on Calvin is that I am a very blunt person. I also tend to feel some pull of responsibility to contribute my opinion when I see others in uncouth circumstances. Sometimes this is received rather pleasantly; others it is like how dare I comment on your private situation. The thing is, if I know about it, it isn't that private, or maybe it is private, and I just happen to be on the inside. I think it is something faulty in us (pride comes to mind) that tells us to be offended when other people sincerely try to help. Perhaps not. And that is where prudence is key. When to actually open my mouth and say something to a person. Maybe I think I have insight they don't have. Often the case that you can see something from the distance that you can't when you are coming up on it. I try to be careful. People make their own decisions, and often through much prayer you and I both come to different decisions but we are both sure that is what is for us. That must be understood.

Especially when you have taken the time to give your opinion, even had it listened to and heard fairly, and then rejected on reasonable basis. You then have to accept it. Maybe you could not do it. It doesn't matter; it is not your life.

After all of that, I wonder how many people would confront me like that. How many people, if I were to open something to them would just listen and not feel the inclination to tell me why they are sure I am wrong. Maybe they think it is not their business. If I tell them, it becomes their business (obviously depending on the degree of information relayed, and many things, etc.). I need people to tell me where I am wrong.

I have always prided myself on being able to detect to a fairly accurate degree my faults/sins. Often when I sinned, I knew it was sin. This -- trait, I guess you would call it comes in very handy now. Maybe I matured a little, but now when I recognize something as sin I find it very hard to continue through with it. I often immediately start to pray about it, and confess the thought. But with my aging I also know that my self-detection ability is not near what I took it to be. I don't see things. The wisdom I am gaining is enough to recognize my pride as giving me a false sense of things. I need people...friends, and family. I need them to come to me with genuine prayer-filled thoughts about something in my life they think I could change. It doesn't mean it is about sin. It is about a foolish decision they see me leading up to that they made in their life...or saw someone make. The more I live the more I sense that it is foolish to ignore advice from older people. But, of course, it is not just older people. I have gained a wealth of advice/knowledge/wisdom/experience from my peers. I value that.

There have been times in my life where people stood by and watched me do something without a word, yet they had serious misgivings about it. In one instance it wasn't until later that I actually found that out. I'm glad I found out though.

I think a big part of this is my integral need for honesty. I cannot abide falsehood. If all we have in life is communication, and if that communication cannot be trusted to mean what it says, then what do we have? However, if I am to be honest to you, I cannot sit by silently. Silence is assent. However, much we may disgree this is true. If I sit by silently while you go and make the biggest mistake of your life, and I say nothing because it is your life and your decision, I am granting my assent to the situation. In your mind, I don't care enough about you to object, or I don't think I need to object. A sad state.

Back to where I was, I need people to be honest with me. I need people to tell me my ideas stink. I need people to tell me that I am off; that I am missing something; that they don't think I can do such-and-such; that I would be better at something else, etc. One of my roommate told me once he didn't think I could be a pastor, but said I would make a good lawyer. I believe I blogged about it on more than one occasion. I was upset. I couldn't believe it. Yet, the more I thought about it, I was glad he was willing to tell me.

I had considered singing in the choir. My parents told me church choirs were for people with good voices. Hard to hear, but true.

I am still of the opinion that I can do pretty much anything I set my mind to (though my mental list of things I cannot is getting longer). However, I am getting old, and soon I will be jumping over many things that I will no longer be capable of doing. Only 4 years ago I was seriously considering law school. When I mention it, Kaylynn says, "Yeah, I thought I was going to marry a lawyer." Yet, today, had that thought not occured to me, it wouldn't even be a possible option. Further, I have a wife now. We all know it is possible to go through school with a wife and kids, but no one will ever say it is ideal. Necessary for some people for what God has called them too, but not ideal. At 26, in one year, when (if I finish my MA) I can truly begin my next pursuit, I must look at how long it will take me. Yes, having a PhD at 35 would be superb, but Lord willing we will have some children by then, and how much of their lives will I have missed? What will I be asking Kaylynn to go through?

You see, part of the reason I blog is for others to help me. I need help. I need advice, and advisors. I'm not asking you to all comment on everything and say don't do x, do do y. But, I would ask that you pray for me and my house.

It is late; I should go. I suppose the one reason for me to blog more often is so you don't get stuck reading 6 page blogs, ha!