tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4454969827028893872024-03-18T20:26:48.468-07:00Ben's Neurons FiringThe good man, out of the good treasure of his heart, brings forth that which is good, and the evil man, out of the evil treasure of his heart, brings forth that which is evil; for out of the abundance of his heart his mouth speaks.
Luke 6:45Ben Gallardahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16117936652291504641noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-445496982702889387.post-14509192903144889302011-09-21T14:17:00.000-07:002011-09-21T14:29:14.935-07:00The Two TreesIf you've read these pages before, you may have noticed a short play was written. This served as a rough draft for a now published version, available on the Amazon Kindle bookstore. I've removed all but the first Act from this site, with the hope that the small number of you who care about what's written here, might actually go buy the book (for only $0.99).<br />
<br />
If you have a Kindle-compatible device (<a href="http://goo.gl/qLxoj">http://goo.gl/qLxoj</a>) and an Amazon account, you can find the book by clicking the cover below.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Two-Trees-ebook/dp/B005O964SY/ref=sr_1_6?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1316638436&sr=1-6"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjm0lrkJa4DrHCdVZVEmdEoQFLrrfMH4EYSiAZUaHDvyx9ylqMGGkw-1bjd7yrYasjh8fqoIy3hnADsg4SIhliWhx8Tpm2XZutR_f3HbRG38QA26d_rpWizIZIXFqfq0GwStRHwlbMNn_U/s320/Cover.jpg" width="200" /></a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=445496982702889387&postID=1450919290314488930&from=pencil"></a></div>Ben Gallardahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16117936652291504641noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-445496982702889387.post-10379079610150004522011-03-28T15:27:00.000-07:002011-03-28T15:27:10.083-07:00The First and the LastWhat is the first thing you do when you wake up in the morning?<br />
<div><br />
</div><div>What is the last thing you do before falling asleep at night?</div><div><br />
</div><div>All of us begin life as helpless infants, completely dependent on those who care for us.</div><div><br />
</div><div>It is how our lives end that really matters. Tremendous success at a given point in our life may define us, but is that enough to sustain us at the end? The people I admire most are those who end their lives at the highest point. I have always enjoyed the comparison of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the book of Genesis. <a href="http://online.recoveryversion.org/BibleChapters.asp?fcid=285&lcid=285">Abraham died</a> at an old age, having remarried following the death of his wife, Sarah. <a href="http://online.recoveryversion.org/BibleChapters.asp?fcid=295&lcid=295">Isaac</a> ended his life blind, after having been deceived into blessing the younger of his twin sons. But <a href="http://online.recoveryversion.org/biblechapters.asp?fcid=308&lcid=310">Jacob</a> ended his life clearly blessing his grandsons, surrounded by his family, and was buried with his father and grandfather followed by a glorious procession. Before he died, he issued a marvelous prophecy, full of light and meaning regarding the future of his twelve sons.<br />
<br />
As mentioned in a previous <a href="http://bengallarda.blogspot.com/2009/12/grandpa.html">blog post</a>, my grandfather went to be with the Lord in a way I feel is similar to that of Jacob.<br />
<br />
I have much of my life to live, but I hope that each day, with what I do when I awake and what I do as I go to sleep, I would have the kind of life that ends as Jacob or Grandpa's <a href="http://online.recoveryversion.org/bibleverses.asp?fvid=24467&lvid=24467">did</a>.</div>Ben Gallardahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16117936652291504641noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-445496982702889387.post-56912581273909786982011-03-10T09:13:00.000-08:002011-03-10T09:14:22.960-08:00How do you know? (2)<i>part 2</i><br />
<br />
Given that God is, the remaining question is how can we know more about Him other than that He defines reality. The answer is experiential knowledge. While many beliefs about God have been put forth throughout history, it is our experience of Him that truly validates any knowledge about Him we may have. This is similar to many people forming many different opinions regarding a certain type of food, but only those who have actually eaten it are really qualified to comment.<br />
<br />
This is the primary reason I find theological debate mostly useless—it is done by those who have not experienced God. Those who deny God's existence are simply fools. If they were honest with themselves, they would admit that they merely doubt God's existence because they have not yet had sufficient evidence to convince them. On a deeper level, I would suggest that these people actually hope that God doesn't exist and have in fact come across quite a bit of evidence that they would like to ignore. But those who engage in more "substantial" theological debates about God fall into two camps—those who believe in Him and those who don't. There is not much difference between them. The knowledge that forms their debate is based mainly on belief, consideration of the evidence for various attributes or actions of God. However, most of those involved in such debates tend to emphasize narrow domains of evidence that support their hopes about who God is and what He does. Being the foundation and essence of reality, God is unsearchably deep. Therefore, avoiding an ever deepening understanding of Him causes one to miss much and form a warped perspective of God.<br />
<br />
Experience is the antidote. Once one has experienced God, they realize that what they have touched is unsearchably deep, indescribably rich, and extends infinitely beyond what they can comprehend. Yet this experience brings with it knowledge of God that both satisfies the recipient while at the same time encouraging them to go deeper. Thus the only commentary on who God is and what He does that I trust is that put forth by those who have experienced God and who encourage others to do so. In fact, these people need not debate much. They know that if those who would argue with them would simply experience God in even the most minuscule way, they would have a revolutionary change in their knowledge of reality.<br />
<br />
This experience supports all other means of knowledge as well. The beliefs of those who experience God are more substantial, being based on compelling evidence (namely the Bible) that matches their experience. Some aspects of God's person and work even reveal themselves to be self-evident, becoming facts to those who experience God. And the hope held by those who experience God is more firm, more real, and more obtainable than any other earthly hope. What a thing it is that man can experience God.Ben Gallardahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16117936652291504641noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-445496982702889387.post-28814654135190023022011-03-09T00:00:00.000-08:002011-03-10T09:14:05.772-08:00How do you know? (1)<i>part 1</i><br />
<br />
In assessing reality, there are four primary ways by which we may <i>know</i> what is true or real and what is not.<br />
<br />
<ul><li><b>Facts - </b>First we have facts, either those things which are by definition true, or things that are self-evident. 2 + 2 equals 4 and <i>all men are created equal</i>. Facts define our reality and are not debatable.</li>
<li><b>Belief - </b>Next are assessments of reality that we are convinced are true by the evidence around us. Much of our knowledge is actually belief rather than fact. We believe a certain form of government is superior to another; we believe man's behavior is (or is not) causing climate change; we believe someone is guilty or innocent of a crime. These are not facts, although they can be supported by a great amount of evidence and therefore be hard to argue against or refute.</li>
<li><b>Experience - </b>Third, we have knowledge based on experience, that is, what we have seen, touched, smelled, tasted, heard, or otherwise interacted with subjectively. I am not hungry right now because I just ate breakfast; this is my reality based on my experience. While occasionally, experience can be misleading or deceiving, it is usually safe to assume that if someone has experienced something, it is true. Arguing against what someone knows based on their experience if you have not had that experience is especially foolish. I would never claim to surpass my wife in knowledge of childbirth because she has had that experience and I have not, and never will.</li>
<li><b>Hope - </b>Finally, there is hope, what we wish to be true whether or not there is evidence for it, and whether or not it is or will be true. We hope a certain team will win the big game, but this is never certain until the event is concluded (Superbowl XLII). It is hard to argue with hope.</li>
</ul><div>An important point that follows from this is that one cannot know something is not true unless it contradicts a fact. To say that something doesn't exist, that another's belief is false, or that no one has had a certain experience is folly; at best you can express doubt that something is true, never absolute certainty.</div><div><br />
</div><div>While nearly all human knowledge of reality comes from these four points, there is a fifth - God. God is the hope of many. Some claim to have experienced Him. Many believe in Him. Various philosophers have even debated if God is a fact. I would go beyond this by saying that God is not merely a fact, He supersedes even definitions and self-evident truths. God is. There is no debate, there is no argument, all of reality is based on this simple premise that <i>God is. </i>Therefore, those who define their reality questioning or even denying this basic premise are deceived.</div>Ben Gallardahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16117936652291504641noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-445496982702889387.post-57526073664715691612011-03-04T08:39:00.000-08:002011-03-04T08:39:18.133-08:00Finger smiley face<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEie0GZ232tYmwfh8LncxMgXkWmUNzkNbTF5hirBP2STvHoJo9S7ZPyg9yaj6BfSammDmtq0PyE-Gz3sbXxhoTT0mh67UW3piIP6q88Xx_ksrkI0KZfgPRHV_j8i-DG7JTqmoCyH8LjfSpE/s1600/Photo+on+2011-03-04+at+17.31.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEie0GZ232tYmwfh8LncxMgXkWmUNzkNbTF5hirBP2STvHoJo9S7ZPyg9yaj6BfSammDmtq0PyE-Gz3sbXxhoTT0mh67UW3piIP6q88Xx_ksrkI0KZfgPRHV_j8i-DG7JTqmoCyH8LjfSpE/s200/Photo+on+2011-03-04+at+17.31.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>When I was little, this was one of the ways my father would keep me entertained. Last night, a <i><a href="http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2570">good</a></i> little boy wanted to run around and get into things, so I picked him up and put him on my lap during dinner. He didn't like that much so he climbed over to mommy and a short while later slipped, bumping his head in the process. This made him a bit upset, so I got my pen out and made a finger smiley face for him.<br />
<br />
He was captivated. After staring at his new friend for a minute, he gave "him" a little kiss, and then made "him" give mommy a kiss too. Unless you become like <a href="http://online.recoveryversion.org/BibleChapters.asp?fcid=18&lcid=18">little children</a>...indeed.Ben Gallardahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16117936652291504641noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-445496982702889387.post-88226709317601056932011-02-24T13:07:00.000-08:002011-02-24T13:07:59.678-08:00Contradiction<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/Vraagteken.svg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/Vraagteken.svg" /></a></div>My reaction after reading <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110216/full/470323a.html">Nature News'</a> recent article on the Templeton Foundation.<br />
<blockquote>Quoted in the article: "<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">'<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;">Religion is based on dogma and belief, whereas science is based on doubt and questioning... </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;">In religion, faith is a virtue. In science, faith is a vice.' The purpose of the Templeton Foundation is to break down that wall, he says — to reconcile the irreconcilable and give religion scholarly legitimacy."</span></span></blockquote>Religion doesn't have scholarly legitimacy? Or is he implying that only science does? Which sciences in particular—is physics more legitimate than biology? And what about history, linguistics, literature, government, economics, and other non-scientific fields? Are these to be dismissed because they achieve their knowledge base by means other than the scientific method?<br />
<br />
I love science; but I love the Triune God more. I don't care much for religion, as it distracts people from the very God they purport to be worshipping. But if science and religion (that is, God) are "irreconcilable" then I am a walking contradiction. Rather, I think the real issue is that everyone wants desperately to believe that what they are filled and occupied with is the real meaning of the universe. By definition, however, science is not the meaning of the universe but <i style="font-weight: bold;">one of many</i> means by which we investigate our universe. God, by definition, is the meaning of the universe, and the universe is meaningless without Him. The real contradiction is to not be filled with God. To quote <i><a href="http://www.ministrybooks.org/">The Economy of God</a>, </i><br />
<blockquote><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: normal; line-height: 19px;">If we do not contain God and know God as our content, we are a senseless contradiction.</span></span></i></blockquote>Ben Gallardahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16117936652291504641noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-445496982702889387.post-59443796775616281832010-12-28T05:50:00.000-08:002010-12-28T05:50:25.460-08:00Scientific Publishing<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/Vitoria-University-Library-food-science-journals-4489.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/Vitoria-University-Library-food-science-journals-4489.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>Two things I've read recently have caused me to re-think my earlier ideas on scientific publishing (<a href="http://mysdscience.com/BenGallarda/blog/72/">mySDscience</a>, subscription required). I won't rehash all of my previous musings on the subject here, but in short, I suggested that authors be able to publish whatever they'd like into an online repository, as long as they had the approval (and potential co-authorship) of a faculty member. No more journals, no more peer-review, just what scientists think should be published.<br />
<br />
After reading much about the arsenic-based bacteria touted recently by NASA (<a href="http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=arsenic+bacteria#q=arsenic+bacteria&num=10&hl=en&prmd=ivns&source=lnms&tbs=nws:1&ei=RuQZTdGuN4q38gPN78mDBw&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&ved=0CBEQ_AU&fp=1&cad=b">Google News search link</a>),<i> </i>and having just enjoyed thoroughly <i>The Atlantic </i><a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269/">profile</a> of Dr. John Ioannidis, and his corresponding <i>PLoS Medicine</i> and <i>JAMA </i>articles from 2005, I am convinced that the current model of scientific publishing is broken. What then should or even <i>could</i> we do to fix it?<br />
<br />
I believe most scientific research is publicly funded. Therefore, why shouldn't the public have the opportunity to access the research they are funding? I would be completely willing to participate in a publishing system that required me to daily upload my experimental procedures, code, data, and results, and also would accept regular summaries similar to today's publications in scientific journals. These archives would be read-only (unable to be tampered with after the fact), and would accept comments only from those also publishing in a similar way in the same system (no anonymity and no trolls without a vested interest in their own results). I can think of a few questions about such a system:<br />
<br />
<ol><li><i>Wouldn't you worry about being scooped?</i><br />
Not really, if someone read of an idea published on my research feed, there would be a record of their accessing it and it would be easy to demonstrate that I had arrived at that idea or result first.</li>
<li><i>Wouldn't this be overly burdensome on the scientists?</i><br />
No more than the current best practices of daily recording results, backing up data, etc. In fact, this would serve as a great insurance against the loss of data.</li>
<li><i>Wouldn't this expose non-scientists to the inner workings of science and not a 'united front' as some scientists have recently called for in relation to climate change, evolution, and even arsenic-based bacteria?</i><br />
Reading the articles linked above would go a long way to dispelling this notion of how science should be done.</li>
</ol><div>To conclude, if I had some reasonable assurance from hiring committees at major universities and research institutions that my work would be considered in the same way as those with publishing records in traditional journals—that the quality of work would be judged, not the journals where the work was published—I would easily, and happily adopt such a system of publishing my day to day research findings.<br />
<br />
</div><div><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">Image courtesy of Vmenkov on Wikimedia Commons</span></i></div>Ben Gallardahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16117936652291504641noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-445496982702889387.post-81928529799162343542010-07-01T23:11:00.000-07:002010-07-01T23:12:36.750-07:00Living WaterI've really enjoyed God as living water as revealed in the book of Isaiah. According to <a href="http://online.recoveryversion.org/bibleverses.asp?fvid=3026&lvid=3026">John 4:14b</a>, this actually covers the entire Bible. Below are some of the outline points from two messages that really explain the depth and riches of this matter.<br />
<br />
Points from the Crystallization-study of Isaiah:<br />
<blockquote>Message Two - The Revelation of the Lord Jehovah, the Eternal God<br />
<br />
The Lord Jehovah has become the divine water. In the book of Isaiah God considers that He is our salvation as living water. To be our salvation, the Triune God was processed to become the life-giving Spirit as the living water, the water of life. <br />
<br />
In totality, what Christ is and has accomplished is just the divine water, which is the consummated Spirit as the consummation of the Triune God for us to drink and enjoy.<br />
<br />
Message Eight - Drawing Water with Rejoicing from the Springs of Salvation<br />
<br />
God's intention in His economy is to be the fountain, the source, of living waters to dispense Himself into HIs chosen people for their satisfaction and enjoyment.<br />
<br />
We need to know the difference between the words <i>fountain</i> and <i>springs</i>. The fountain is the source, the springs are the issue of the source, and the river is the flow. </blockquote><br />
The Triune God, while unfathomably profound, is also very simple. The Father is the hidden source, the Son is the spring, and the Spirit is the flow. What God wants from us, in order to fulfill His eternal purpose, is simply that we drink Him as this water. One of the best ways to do this is by <a href="http://online.recoveryversion.org/FootNotes.asp?FNtsID=2905">calling</a> on the name of the Lord.Ben Gallardahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16117936652291504641noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-445496982702889387.post-15648291114669247002010-06-03T22:42:00.000-07:002010-06-03T22:42:10.128-07:00Philosophy and the SandwichThe thesis is taking most of my time, but I remembered an interesting interaction I had several years ago and thought to commit it to the cloud.<br />
<br />
I was invited to a UCSD Philosophy Club discussion regarding theodicy, or the supposed problem of an apparent contradiction between an omnipotent, benevolent God and the existence of evil. While not getting into this pointless debate too much, I'd like to make two observations. <br />
<br />
First, every time I hear this matter come up, I am dumbfounded at the consistent lack of defining the terms before the discussion. What is "good"? What is "evil"? It is always assumed that everyone present knows what these terms mean, but how can you debate good and evil, let alone God, without defining the terms?<br />
<br />
Second, at this particular discussion, I created a peculiar metaphor for our discussion that goes as follows. It was like we were sitting around a table with a cover on it, and the proposition being debated was the existence of a sandwich underneath the cover. The Christians at the debate, believing in the sandwich because many of them had tasted it at one time or another, argued strongly for its existence. The atheists, never before having tasted the sandwich, argued that it could not possibly exist. However, no one simply lifted up the cover, picked up the sandwich, and took a bite. That's what I would have done, and that is what I would encourage any aspiring philosophers to do. Eat the sandwich; then you'll know once and for all whether or not it exists.<br />
<br />
Finally, to the aspiring philosophers, should any actually find this post: don't summarize philosophy, do philosophy. I could not believe how much of that pointless debate was the summarizing and quoting of previous philosophers' works, and how little was actual synthesized ideas from the participants.Ben Gallardahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16117936652291504641noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-445496982702889387.post-81008027679065283092009-12-29T16:52:00.000-08:002013-10-02T12:53:26.103-07:00Grandpa in Pictures<i>See <a href="http://bengallarda.blogspot.com/2009/12/grandpa.html">part 1</a> for the story of Grandpa.</i><br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPGaOyHxMzXkbZGnCfXx7VVglW7rKyIH3HVLXfavY8EcWN01JrJ3fsK0dmP2beekjCTF9bWL1E9GNEvEPKFk3et1jL1D55veVqMOEQ_oDpPOwhneBjcVaWUBOeo4xxg8HqS8hNqNlYbEY/s1600-h/Scan+30.jpeg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5420829197591083842" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPGaOyHxMzXkbZGnCfXx7VVglW7rKyIH3HVLXfavY8EcWN01JrJ3fsK0dmP2beekjCTF9bWL1E9GNEvEPKFk3et1jL1D55veVqMOEQ_oDpPOwhneBjcVaWUBOeo4xxg8HqS8hNqNlYbEY/s320/Scan+30.jpeg" style="cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 320px; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; width: 315px;" /></a><span style="font-style: italic;"></span><br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpz9MzU_aND-O2tXb5IEWQF4tKKctyZsxWXuIvPOT3eefgKRMx3_7iMt1NKav9Z2JiJ65HW2RmeeiS04QfybRvKFEi6gVXIDlO_HLkgaYEoRDra8-l_YKQr1mmUItgC5yWuHCU9K5Whds/s1600-h/Scan+39.jpeg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5420829280853145762" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpz9MzU_aND-O2tXb5IEWQF4tKKctyZsxWXuIvPOT3eefgKRMx3_7iMt1NKav9Z2JiJ65HW2RmeeiS04QfybRvKFEi6gVXIDlO_HLkgaYEoRDra8-l_YKQr1mmUItgC5yWuHCU9K5Whds/s320/Scan+39.jpeg" style="cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 191px; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; width: 320px;" /></a><span style="font-style: italic;">Grandpa and me</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgd6tr5VzDxz4jyhHQz9KHjS8jBD2EROeUFdv04fzqE_LZ8Zau2qpfy_3NjbXkQ8HnWx4Vwpp0F9QheMxtObxP1fLkbrlJpIwtO_WhGwQlgbgCr6jI4qrSufWG1G1d2Z5XNncACXTBNWPI/s1600-h/18+Ben,+Jen,+%26+Grandpa.JPG" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5420828539650446642" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgd6tr5VzDxz4jyhHQz9KHjS8jBD2EROeUFdv04fzqE_LZ8Zau2qpfy_3NjbXkQ8HnWx4Vwpp0F9QheMxtObxP1fLkbrlJpIwtO_WhGwQlgbgCr6jI4qrSufWG1G1d2Z5XNncACXTBNWPI/s320/18+Ben,+Jen,+%26+Grandpa.JPG" style="cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 240px; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; width: 320px;" /></a><br />
<span style="font-style: italic;">Grandpa, Jen, and me</span><br />
<br />
<br />Ben Gallardahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16117936652291504641noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-445496982702889387.post-56045563054640870952009-12-26T09:39:00.000-08:002009-12-26T10:29:04.717-08:00Being Preserved<span style="font-size:80%;"><i>all verse links are to the <a href="http://online.recoveryversion.org/">Recovery Version</a> for comparison</i></span><br /><br />In a copy of the NIV with footnotes written by Charles Ryrie:<br /><a href="http://online.recoveryversion.org/FootNotes.asp?FNtsID=5304">Gal. 3:16</a><br /><blockquote>The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ. (NIV)<br /></blockquote>The note on this verse says:<br /><blockquote><i>seed.</i> Since Paul's argument here is based on the singular form of the word in the OT (Gen. 22:17-18), he must have believed in the accuracy of the very words of Scripture.</blockquote>Ryrie goes on to use this and another example from Matthew to explain the inerrancy of every word in the Bible—even singular, plural, or tenses of words are important.<br /><br />However, when we come to <a href="http://online.recoveryversion.org/FootNotes.asp?FNtsID=6515">1 Thessalonians 5:23</a> or <a href="http://online.recoveryversion.org/FootNotes.asp?FNtsID=7252">Hebrews 4:12</a>,<br /><blockquote><i>spirit, soul and body</i> should not be understood as defining the parts of man, but as representing the whole man.</blockquote>Such is the contradiction by those who insist that man is merely two parts—body and soul (which is supposedly the same as the spirit)—and ignore or explain away the many verses in the Bible that speak of the three parts of man. In Greek, spirit is <i>pneuma</i> and soul is <i>psuche,</i> two distinct words. So according to the fact that every word of the Bible is God-breathed and inerrant, soul and spirit should refer to two distinct parts of man. The tendency to confuse the two is even apparent in the translation of the NIV in 1 Thessalonians 5:23 referred to above—the conjunction <i>and</i> is removed from between "spirit" and "soul," although it is unquestionably there in the original Greek text.<br /><br />More important that simply being correct on this doctrinal point, however, is the idea put forth in the verses from 1 Thessalonians 5 that we must be <b><i>preserved</i></b> in all three parts of our being. Verse 23 uses two marvelous words, "(sanctify you) <a href="http://online.recoveryversion.org/FootNotes.asp?FNtsID=6514">wholly</a>" and "(be preserved) complete," to speak about this preservation. From the <a href="http://online.recoveryversion.org/FootNotes.asp?FNtsID=6516">footnote</a>, and explained in more depth in <i><a href="http://www.ministrybooks.org/">Life-study of 1 Thessalonians</a></i> messages 23 and 24, wholly is quantitative and complete is qualitative. Therefore, we must not only know that we have three parts—spirit, soul, and body—but we must go on to know our three parts and open to the Lord that they be sanctified wholly and preserved completely.Ben Gallardahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16117936652291504641noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-445496982702889387.post-31052367774940538572009-12-21T16:44:00.000-08:002011-02-24T13:27:15.107-08:00Goldilocks and the Three Dinosaurs<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIgIwLq3royPoVDK0Xl7ck1-Dcwc3FcNx5_2eUs4yOQRRc2jmnlEEJOtXzrTsP5FKlBguew7WXxQIg0iZiUpApattFsxQZVU0xN4VDF9xonzGgHIMHUY4CY4Xzhycxa2ppddRfVO-TF50/s1600-h/GoldiAndDinos.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5417855320219788690" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIgIwLq3royPoVDK0Xl7ck1-Dcwc3FcNx5_2eUs4yOQRRc2jmnlEEJOtXzrTsP5FKlBguew7WXxQIg0iZiUpApattFsxQZVU0xN4VDF9xonzGgHIMHUY4CY4Xzhycxa2ppddRfVO-TF50/s320/GoldiAndDinos.jpg" style="cursor: pointer; float: left; height: 214px; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; width: 320px;" /></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<i>Creative consultation by Jolene</i><br />
<br />
Once upon a time, there was a little girl named Goldilocks. She lived in the woods with her father, who was an inventor. One of his inventions was a time machine. But she wasn't allowed to play in it. However, Goldilocks didn't always obey, and she was very curious.<br />
<br />
So one day, when she was playing with her dog, her dog jumped into the time machine, and she climbed in to get him. But he jumped out to go chase his ball. She was about to climb out of the time machine, but she noticed that there was a spot on one of the buttons. Not wanting to leave it dirty, she started to wipe the spot off, but as it came off, the button accidentally depressed and started the time machine. Before she could climb out, the time machine went back 150 million years to the <b><i>Age of the Dinosaurs.</i></b><br />
<br />
Goldilocks climbed out of the time machine and heard a noise coming from the trees to her left. As she poked her head through some bushes, she saw a clearing, and right in the middle was a small <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allosaurus">Allosaurus</a>. He had his leg caught in some logs and was trying to get it out.<br />
<br />
Goldilocks walked over to him and said, "Hello." the Baby Allosaurus replied, "Can you help me get my leg out?" Goldilocks said, "Sure," and proceeded to wiggle his leg loose from the logs in which it was trapped. Just as the leg came loose, there was a terrible crashing and two larger Allosaurus came through the trees, roaring loudly. Goldilocks began to be a bit frightened, but the Baby Allosaurus looked at the larger dinosaurs and called, "Hi Daddy, hi Mommy, this person just helped me get my leg out." Goldilocks looked up at the fearsome predators and said, "Nice to meet you, my name is Goldilocks."<br />
<br />
The smaller of the two adult dinosaurs replied, "I am the Mommy Allosaurus and this is the Daddy Allosaurus. Thank you for helping our Baby Allosaurus free his leg."<br />
<br />
"You're welcome," said Goldilocks.<br />
<br />
"We were about to get dinner," said the Baby Allosaurus, "would you like to join us?"<br />
<br />
Goldilocks said she would and she followed the three carnivores as they stalked and caught a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stegosaurus">stegosaurus</a>. After a delicious meal of stegosaurus steaks. Goldilocks said she had to be going and made her way back to the time machine. After getting in and going back to the instant she left, she realized that she had forgotten her camera and hadn't taken any pictures of her new friends.Ben Gallardahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16117936652291504641noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-445496982702889387.post-20608356442373501682009-12-13T08:05:00.000-08:002009-12-29T17:18:42.167-08:00Grandpa<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcdNQbFRB-Vz0MrpWkUI8JurvwYu5ge_YaDxAaoE4zeuXVhv2sH4hFqYlNQd7t8-oGRXv-O4MQQGPWDL8elYuxnV593LMk4pqDyBd16foS0opR-I0UhTsz9Bkh4AeJ2dPzo5PR1vC35M4/s1600-h/Grandpa.JPG" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5414754090324307010" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcdNQbFRB-Vz0MrpWkUI8JurvwYu5ge_YaDxAaoE4zeuXVhv2sH4hFqYlNQd7t8-oGRXv-O4MQQGPWDL8elYuxnV593LMk4pqDyBd16foS0opR-I0UhTsz9Bkh4AeJ2dPzo5PR1vC35M4/s320/Grandpa.JPG" style="cursor: pointer; float: left; height: 214px; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; width: 320px;" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</a><i>8/28/1919 to 11/26/2009</i><br />
<br />
While many pages could be written about what Grandpa accomplished in his lifetime of over ninety years, one memory stands out to me.<br />
<br />
Jen and I were visiting him and Grandma Dorothy several summers ago, about a year after we had finished the full-time training in Anaheim. On our way to Corning, I asked the Lord how Grandpa was with Him. I didn't know how to bring up the subject with someone so much older than me, and whom I respected to the uttermost. So as he and I were sitting on the sofa while Jen and Grandma Dorothy were off doing something else, I wanted to say something, but didn't know what.<br />
<br />
That's when Grandpa turned to me and said something like, "You know, Ben, I feel like the Lord has been taking care of me my whole life."<br />
<br />
I was first amazed, and then thankful to the Lord for answering my earlier prayer. Grandpa proceeded to tell me of an experience he had while in the Air Force, flying a large cargo plane. While flying in formation, the pilot to his left began to roll right too early, heading directly for Grandpa's plane. Grandpa gave it power and pulled up as fast as he could in a plane that large, causing the two to miss by less than 50 feet. Once on the ground, the other pilot was devastated thinking of the accident he had almost caused, but Grandpa was stern yet forgiving.<br />
<br />
What was even more impressive than this story was how Grandpa's comment reflected the end of the life of another man of God, Jacob. <a href="http://online.recoveryversion.org/bibleverses.asp?fvid=9425&lvid=9426">Genesis 48:15-16</a> says:<br />
<blockquote>And he blessed Joseph and said, The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked, The God who has shepherded me all my life to this day, The Angel who has redeemed me from all evil, bless the boys; And may my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; And may they be a teeming multitude in the midst of the earth. <br />
</blockquote>Praise the Lord who both shepherded Jacob all his life, and who took care of Grandpa his whole life.<br />
<br />
Every time we visited Grandpa in the last decade of his life, he always had a new story to tell me, one I had never heard before. And the final time we saw him, this past summer, he got to meet his Great-grandson, who shares his middle name, Jesse, and who is the first boy of his generation to bear the last name Gallarda.<br />
<br />
Thank You, Lord, for Grandpa.Ben Gallardahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16117936652291504641noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-445496982702889387.post-12841916954146710462009-09-10T18:07:00.000-07:002009-09-11T09:39:02.841-07:00Windows 7<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.microsoft.com/windows/framework/images/windows-7/sidebar_box_homepremium_upgrd.gif"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 63px; height: 76px;" src="http://www.microsoft.com/windows/framework/images/windows-7/sidebar_box_homepremium_upgrd.gif" alt="" border="0" /></a><br />...or <a href="http://uxevangelist.blogspot.com/2008/02/windows-7-version-61-yes-61-and-heres.html">6.1</a>?<br /><br />I skipped Vista (except for one machine in the lab that we have to run it on because a certain bit of microscopy <a href="http://www.moleculardevices.com/pages/software/metamorph.html">software</a> <b><i>won't work with anything else).</i></b> By the way, even on a pretty high-powered <a href="http://www.dell.com/us/en/gen/desktops/precn_690/pd.aspx?refid=precn_690&s=gen">Dell Precision 690 workstaion</a> with 12 GB of RAM and a medium/high-end Nvidia graphics card, Vista (64-bit) is still slow, annoying, and about as painful to use as Windows 98 on Jen's 233 MHz Pentium <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8LDH-RdmoaGfj7t2NsW0Go1iY-2qJBmiuEIDVFzs6MccO8awazZvk1VV9NJfdMN6CywaVt8Y-Ih9S54oHUpWcKoGahcnzPB-hon1aJlzCkBnbLohX_BvhrOOcFIrkhtw6fRbodN5lblM/s1600-h/IMG00146.jpg">laptop</a> she used in college. But this post isn't about Vista, it is about how much better Windows 7 is than Vista.<br /><br />Since the Windows 7 Beta was released to the public on 1/9/09, I've ignored the advice not to run this on production machines and installed it on the second partition of my MacBook Pro. Through the Beta, the Release Candidate, and now with the RTM freshly installed, I've gotten the feeling that Windows 7 is finally giving Mac OS X a run for it's money (that is, until <a href="http://www.apple.com/macosx/">10.6</a> came out). A few observations:<br /></date><ol><li><date>Windows 7 is way faster than Vista, and is even faster than Windows XP on my machine.</date></li><li>From the Beta through the RTM, it has been the most stable version of Windows I've ever used. I even ran a data analysis loop using <a href="http://www.wavemetrics.com/">IGOR Pro</a> <b><i>overnight</i></b> and it didn't crash.</li><li>The windows management—docking right, left, and top; aero previews, etc.—is actually a bit superior to the Mac. I really like being able to throw one window to the right of the screen and one to the left in order to compare their contents side-by-side. This works especially well on multiple monitors.</li><li>Taskbar and Start Menu search make organizing and finding applications and files incredibly easy—comparable to <a href="http://www.blacktree.com/">Quicksilver</a> on the Mac.</li><li>Much like Mac OS X, there are just a lot of incremental changes that show that the developers paid good attention to detail to enhance the overall experience.<br /></li></ol><date>I'm still convinced that running Windows 7 on a MacBook Pro is best. The Mac still has a few design advantages over PCs that make it easier to use (like two-finger scrolling on the touchpad instead of that annoying side-scroll strip). But Windows 7 as a product is easily as good as Mac OS 10.5. With the advent of <a href="http://bengallarda.blogspot.com/2009/09/snow-leopard.html">10.6,</a> Apple still seems to be one step ahead, integrating higher performance features into the OS in a user-friendly way—just check out the new <a href="http://www.macosxautomation.com/">services</a> for an example. Not to mention that it is way easier to <a href="http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/25932/winclone">backup</a> Windows from another partition (the Mac OS X one) on the same machine than from within Windows itself.<br /><br />In sum, Windows 7 is a huge step in the right direction for Microsoft and upgrading from Windows XP was a no-brainer.<br /></date>Ben Gallardahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16117936652291504641noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-445496982702889387.post-82181269752957760702009-09-07T11:50:00.000-07:002009-09-10T18:05:52.774-07:00Snow Leopard<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyu6dD7KpMHD1Ngti2uEoNhRXlxxnatLqpeQ5CXMzXLmsn4x5MORkL6Is26p2xN5dCBECu2YloIRz_wFmGQfTReLM7L3HBJ63IHWDakDsG6gGWS7MRxORD9ALOALuoEoGfF9zTcZz58rc/s1600-h/Snow_Leopard_Louisville_Zoo.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 230px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyu6dD7KpMHD1Ngti2uEoNhRXlxxnatLqpeQ5CXMzXLmsn4x5MORkL6Is26p2xN5dCBECu2YloIRz_wFmGQfTReLM7L3HBJ63IHWDakDsG6gGWS7MRxORD9ALOALuoEoGfF9zTcZz58rc/s320/Snow_Leopard_Louisville_Zoo.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5380009807791722226" /></a><br /><br />Or Mac OS X 10.6.<br /><br />It's <a href="http://www.apple.com/macosx/">out</a>, it's been <a href="http://www.tuaw.com/tag/SnowLeopard/">reviewed</a>, so I'll add a simple comment.<br /><br />Perhaps this is Apple's way of compromising with PowerPC users. If you have an older Mac, you are still able to run Leopard (10.5), an awesome operating system with great features and performance. You can't upgrade to Snow Leopard though, because it is Intel only. But, Snow Leopard doesn't include all the new features that differentiated 10.5 from 10.4; in fact, most of it's touted features are aimed at the higher-powered Intel-based machines (<a href="http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/">Grand Central Dispatch, OpenCL</a>). Therefore, if you are still using a PowerPC Mac, you shouldn't be too put out by not being able to use Snow Leopard, and should stay happy running one of the best operating systems ever, Leopard, on an older machine.<br /><br />Finally, the last PowerPC-based Macs were made around <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Macintosh_models">2006</a>, so by the time 10.7 or whatever is next rolls around, it will be high time to buy a new machine to take advantage of it.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:78%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Image by </span><a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ltshears" title="User:Ltshears"><span style="font-family:arial;">Ltshears<span style="font-weight: bold;">;</span></span></a></span><br /><span style="font-family: arial;font-size:78%;" >and can be found at <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Snow_Leopard_Louisville_Zoo.jpg">http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Snow_Leopard_Louisville_Zoo.jpg</a></span>Ben Gallardahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16117936652291504641noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-445496982702889387.post-66453417304353211212009-09-06T14:52:00.000-07:002009-09-06T15:46:00.493-07:00Matthew 28:19Apparently, there is some controversy about the actual reading of Matthew 28:19, which I read as: Go therefore and disciple all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (<a href="http://online.recoveryversion.org/FootNotes.asp?FNtsID=1149">RcV</a>) <br /><br />But the arguments surrounding this verse are misleading for two main reasons. First, there are plenty of old texts of the New Testament, both Greek and translations, that contain this verse as written, some of which predate AD 300. There are no manuscripts or versions (i.e. translations) of Matthew that contain a different reading. This is easily verified by studying the critical apparatus in <i>Novum Testamentum Graece</i> 27th ed. compiled by Nestle and Aland. God sovereignly arranged for the existing manuscripts of the New Testament to be preserved, discovered, and studied, and I appreciate the scholarship that gives us an amazingly accurate text of the New Testament. Furthermore, difficult readings (such as this one) are actually somewhat common in the New Testament, and it is a tenant of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism">textual criticism</a> to take a more difficult reading over an easier one.<br /><br />Second, and more importantly, one of the items of our Christian faith is that <a href="http://www.livingstreambooks.com/servlet/Detail?no=899">the Bible is the Word of God</a>. Based on our being infused with Christ Himself as our faith when we believed into Him, we similarly believe God's Word as we have it. Advancing ideas that require one to doubt the actual text of the New Testament, replacing it with unsupported alternative readings undermines this belief. Unfortunately, such "analysis" is usually based on a certain theological predisposition, which does not match the Christian faith at all.<br /><br />So in sum, those who are healthy in the faith should have no problem with such arguments, as they spontaneously believe God's word and reject alternatives to it. But, as believers, it doesn't hurt to be aware that both according to the historical record (Biblical manuscripts) and according to the <a href="http://online.recoveryversion.org/FootNotes.asp?FNtsID=8563">faith</a> delivered once for all to the saints (our Triune God embodied in Christ realized as the Spirit infused into us), Matthew 28:19 will read as it does for eternity.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhn3t5D2DpBexNBcP04BkzMVAub4shCV11QWX30hQ4FO9vIKcMHaQscPJAbLt6rmtcd7EZK4kFUTS4JI1VgHS0zjiB6N2O8C3Z4QMWui_0FMInesm7Ic48CjW0a0Yc_9wbWDnfv1WhNrTA/s1600-h/Capture.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 103px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhn3t5D2DpBexNBcP04BkzMVAub4shCV11QWX30hQ4FO9vIKcMHaQscPJAbLt6rmtcd7EZK4kFUTS4JI1VgHS0zjiB6N2O8C3Z4QMWui_0FMInesm7Ic48CjW0a0Yc_9wbWDnfv1WhNrTA/s400/Capture.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5378484292361532786" /></a><br />Matthew 29:19b-20a; Codex Vaticanus (ca. 4th century). Courtesy of The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts - <a href="http://www.csntm.org">www.csntm.org</a> and <a href="http://images.csntm.org/Manuscripts/GA_03/GA03_024a.jpg">images.csntm.org/Manuscripts/GA_03/GA03_024a.jpg</a> for the text.Ben Gallardahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16117936652291504641noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-445496982702889387.post-89541557750266931522009-08-23T20:12:00.000-07:002009-09-06T15:42:44.883-07:00Language and Thought<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtz2tDyrZFIU1M-6O8jsln8SuU7lpR9PC-qmfLDKOp2hJL_TKHTRhpWJUkAlmrDf51R-ZDraqyQPIidBIhMj68WodfUV2Qsq6pPfhrI2Gi9l9cz0qbZ0bfXv7rj8oRN5MUnTrPiSMpUds/s1600-h/DSC00312.JPG"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 150px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtz2tDyrZFIU1M-6O8jsln8SuU7lpR9PC-qmfLDKOp2hJL_TKHTRhpWJUkAlmrDf51R-ZDraqyQPIidBIhMj68WodfUV2Qsq6pPfhrI2Gi9l9cz0qbZ0bfXv7rj8oRN5MUnTrPiSMpUds/s320/DSC00312.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5378464564866108034" /></a><br />What comes first, language or thought?<br /><br />If thought comes first, how is it interpreted subjectively before words are known to express the thought? For example, if a <a href="http://www.twitpic.com/esw91">baby</a> wants a ball, they might perceive a visualization of the ball in their hands, when in fact it is several feet away from them. Then, as they begin to learn a vocabulary, words replace the image—"I want ball!"<br /><br />But if language comes first, that would imply that learning language governs our thought processes; that our ability to think is dependent on the language we have. Back to the ball example, the baby may not even know they want the ball until they have learned the words "want" and "ball"; not that they could speak them per se, but that the thoughts in their head are expressed as these words. This second option would suggest a great deal about our ability to think, create, and invent, and even to learn new languages. It is rather difficult to learn a new language when your thinking patterns are expressed solely in the originally learned language.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRhJv4xdCKp7hJoierrLDDOdhiqqVdVubNY3IKv9_CRKVTKeq6d1SPPrb-vzXyaQqnYMlAL4Z7bRbSK-SuAPH9sZP6zspVJN9kQ4GkA7sJSvd2LIvbut8YAx5ryeHG2R4E2FNf_yxs3m4/s1600-h/Ball.bmp"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 308px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRhJv4xdCKp7hJoierrLDDOdhiqqVdVubNY3IKv9_CRKVTKeq6d1SPPrb-vzXyaQqnYMlAL4Z7bRbSK-SuAPH9sZP6zspVJN9kQ4GkA7sJSvd2LIvbut8YAx5ryeHG2R4E2FNf_yxs3m4/s320/Ball.bmp" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5378465990714608354" /></a>Ben Gallardahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16117936652291504641noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-445496982702889387.post-42423078125001608832009-03-28T18:09:00.000-07:002009-03-28T18:27:02.657-07:00IntermissionWhile taking a break from <i>The Two Trees</i>, I thought to provide a brief intermission. But not to go without any content, here is the results on looking into the meaning of the word <b><i>good</i></b> as it is used in the New Testament.<br /><br />Kalon is a Greek word used in the New Testament, commonly translated as "good." After looking into it a bit more, I was impressed that good means more than simply "not bad." It means "...beautiful applied by the Greeks to everything so distinguished in form, excellence, goodness, usefulness, as to be pleasing; hence beautiful, handsome, excellent, eminent, choice, surpassing, precious, useful, suitable, commendable, admirable" (<a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2570&t=KJV">Thayer's</a>). It is translated in the Recovery Version of the New Testament as: good, fine (<a href="http://online.recoveryversion.org/bibleverses.asp?fvid=440&lvid=440">Matt. 13:45</a>), better (<a href="http://online.recoveryversion.org/bibleverses.asp?fvid=591&lvid=591">Matt. 18:8</a>), <b><i>noble</i></b> and good (<a href="http://online.recoveryversion.org/bibleverses.asp?fvid=2116&lvid=2116">Luke 8:15</a> – kalon is translated noble here; good in this verse is the Greek word agathos, where we get our name Agatha), beautiful (<a href="http://online.recoveryversion.org/bibleverses.asp?fvid=2687&lvid=2687">Luke 21:5</a>), <b><i>Fair</i></b> Havens (<a href="http://online.recoveryversion.org/bibleverses.asp?fvid=4719&lvid=4719">Acts 27:8</a>), honorable (<a href="http://online.recoveryversion.org/bibleverses.asp?fvid=5118&lvid=5118">Rom. 12:17</a>; <a href="http://online.recoveryversion.org/bibleverses.asp?fvid=5809&lvid=5809">2 Cor. 8:21</a>), approved…good (<a href="http://online.recoveryversion.org/bibleverses.asp?fvid=5906&lvid=5906">2 Cor. 13:7</a>), respectable…good (<a href="http://online.recoveryversion.org/bibleverses.asp?fvid=6787&lvid=6787">Titus 3:8</a>), excellent…good (<a href="http://online.recoveryversion.org/bibleverses.asp?fvid=7267&lvid=7267">1 Pet. 2:12</a>). Finally, in an entry on synonyms in Trench's Synonyms of the New Testament, it is implied that Kalon is more than just being the best one can be, but rather is the best anything can be. This made me consider that although anyone can live a human life that is not bad,it is only by receiving Christ as our life and living Him out that we can actually have a life that is described as Kalon. For this, we need a heart as good earth to receive the word as the good seed (<a href="http://online.recoveryversion.org/BibleChapters.asp?fcid=13&lcid=13">Matt. 13:19, 8, 24</a>), to bear good fruit as good trees (<a href="http://online.recoveryversion.org/bibleverses.asp?fvid=378&lvid=378">Matt. 12:33</a>), and we need to receive and hold the good teaching (<a href="http://online.recoveryversion.org/BibleVerses.asp?fvid=6609&lvid=6609">1 Tim. 4:6</a>), so that we'll be the fine pearl, so precious to the Lord that He sold everything to buy it (<a href="http://online.recoveryversion.org/bibleverses.asp?fvid=440&lvid=440">Matt. 13:45</a>).<br /><br />In today's age, when good for many describes <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/education/18college.html">doing the minimum required</a> and staying out of trouble, it is refreshing to see that for others, good describes something much higher.Ben Gallardahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16117936652291504641noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-445496982702889387.post-74007200125662750772009-01-18T19:48:00.000-08:002011-03-28T03:27:38.426-07:00The Two Trees I-3<i>Act I, Scene 3</i><br />
<br />
<i>Nabal:</i> Ok, I'll humor you, what is the Bible about, other than shepherds and camel traders?<br />
<br />
<i>Abel:</i> The Bible is an amazing historical document. It proves that God exists and that Judaism was His revealed religion before Christ came and that Christianity is His revealed <a href="http://online.recoveryversion.org/FootNotes.asp?FNtsID=348">religion</a> after. <br />
<br />
<i>Nabal:</i> Why would God, if He is so great and almighty, care about petty human religion? And why would one of many religions be any better than the others when they are all the same?<br />
<br />
<i>Abel:</i> All those other religions aren't God's <b><i>revealed</i></b> religion. It's His will that we follow His revealed religion...Stewart, you said you read the Bible, isn't that God's will?<br />
<br />
<i>Stewart:</i> The Bible does talk about <a href="http://online.recoveryversion.org/bibleverses.asp?fvid=6067&lvid=6073">God's will</a>, but I think His will is mainly related to Christ.<br />
<br />
<i>Abel:</i> See Nabal, Stewart's right, and Christ revealed that Christianity is God's religion that we should follow so that we can go to heaven when we die. Right Stewart?<br />
<br />
<i>Stewart:</i> <a href="http://www.affcrit.com/archives/ac_00_02.html">Uhh...</a><br />
<br />
<i>Abel:</i> Maybe it will help if we explain the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament.<br />
<br />
<i>Brian:</i> Yeah, I've always wondered why there are two parts to the Bible. And why are they called "Testaments"?<br />
<br />
<i>Stewart:</i> A <a href="http://online.recoveryversion.org/FootNotes.asp?FNtsID=7374">testament</a> is like a will—various accomplishments bequeathed to the inheritors.<br />
<br />
<i>Abel:</i> Right, and in the New Testament, God gave us Christianity and the way to go to heaven, and in the Old Testament, God gave us Judaism and the Law, which was replaced by Christianity, and certain facts about creation and the world.<br />
<br />
<i>Nabal:</i> Certain facts? Like what?<br />
<br />
<i>Abel:</i> Well, the Law tells us about good and evil...<br />
<br />
<i>Nabal:</i> Those are just societal constructs to keep us from behaving in antisocial ways.<br />
<br />
<i>Brian:</i> Are you dating a <a href="http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1120">sociology</a> major? Where did you learn that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychobabble">psychobabble</a>?<br />
<br />
<i>Nabal:</i> She's just a friend...it's not my fault she's not into the hard sciences.<br />
<br />
<i>Abel:</i> ...and Genesis, the first book of the Old Testament tells us that the earth is 6,000 years old.<br />
<br />
<i>Nabal:</i> Come on! Everything we've studied and everything we know shows the earth is older than that, by several orders of magnitude... next you're going to tell me the earth is flat too.<br />
<br />
<i>Abel:</i> When it comes to the Bible versus science, I'll take the Bible, since it is infallible. Every word in the Bible is accurate and precise, and the Bible explicitly says the earth is only 6,000 years old. Evolution is...<br />
<br />
<i>Brian:</i> Speaking of science, even if you don't believe it, we're going to be tested on neuroscience tomorrow and might want to finish up our studying before the library closes.<br />
<br />
<i>Stewart:</i> All we had left was the electrophysiology chapter. Can we maybe go over how an <a href="http://outreach.mcb.harvard.edu/animations/actionpotential.swf">action potential</a> works and call it a day?<br />
<br />
<i>Brian:</i> So, I think there are two main types of ions involved in the membrane voltage changes during an action potential, sodium and potassium...<br />
<br />
<i><a href="http://bengallarda.blogspot.com/2009/05/two-trees-ii-1.html">next</a></i>Ben Gallardahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16117936652291504641noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-445496982702889387.post-62654152627856424332009-01-11T07:43:00.000-08:002011-03-28T03:26:41.130-07:00The Two Trees I-2<i>Act I, Scene 2<br />
<br />
Voice: Attention all students and library patrons. The library will be closing in thirty minutes.</i><br />
<br />
<i>Brian:</i> Before you guys get into this, are we finished studying?<br />
<br />
<i>Nabal:</i> I'm good, let's have this discussion Abel, no, I haven't heard of apologetics. But I definitely think you should apologize for reading the Bible.<br />
<br />
<i>Abel:</i> That's not what <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologetics">"apologetics"</a> means, the term refers to the systematic defense of God's existence and the truth of Christianity. It is the <a href="http://online.recoveryversion.org/FootNotes.asp?FNtsID=8630">fundamental theme</a> of the New Testament of the Bible.<br />
<br />
<i>Stewart:</i> Are you guys sure you don't want to study for a few more minutes.<br />
<br />
<i>Abel:</i> Well...<br />
<br />
<i>Nabal:</i> I'm done, you guys study. What do you mean by "defense" of God's existence. How can you defend a falsehood. Don't you know that <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Charles_Darwin_aged_51.jpg">Darwin</a> proved God didn't exist. You should really read some of the latest books on this, they'll clear you up in no time. Back me up here, Stewart, Brain, haven't you guys read Dawkins' latest?<br />
<br />
<i>Brian:</i> Richard Dawkins?<br />
<br />
<i>Nabal:</i> Yeah, now that guy knows the Bible—what a load of rubbish it is anyway.<br />
<br />
<i>Stewart:</i> I beg to differ.<br />
<br />
<i>Nabal:</i> What?<br />
<br />
<i>Stewart:</i> That Richard Dawkins knows the Bible. He makes some mistakes in discussing it in <i>The God Delusion.</i> For example, in trying to assign motives to Matthew and Luke in writing each of their Gospels, he claims that Luke included kings worshiping Jesus as a child in order to impress the Gentiles who would read his Gospel.<br />
<br />
<i>Nabal:</i> So?<br />
<br />
<i>Stewart:</i> So, the Magi, or kings, coming from the east to worship Jesus was detailed in <a href="http://online.recoveryversion.org/BibleChapters.asp?fcid=2&lcid=2">Matthew's Gospel</a>, not Luke's. Dawkins made a mistake.<br />
<br />
<i>Nabal:</i> Ahh, that's just a technicality.<br />
<br />
<i>Stewart:</i> Also, I'd like to clear something up from before. You implied that I wouldn't be someone who reads the Bible. Well, I do read the Bible. Science is interesting and intellectually stimulating, and I'm glad we are studying it. But in order to satisfy <a href="http://online.recoveryversion.org/bibleverses.asp?fvid=25329&lvid=25329">something</a> <a href="http://online.recoveryversion.org/bibleverses.asp?fvid=5261&lvid=5262">deep in me</a> that longs for more, the Bible is just what I need. It sounds like Abel knows this as well. If you've never read the Bible, Nabal, you should at least give it a try. That's what any open-minded scientist would do, right? At least read something you want to disagree with to find out for yourself why it is wrong.<br />
<br />
<i>Nabal:</i> That's why I read books by Richard Dawkins...<br />
<br />
<i>Brian:</i> But that's just his point Nabal. If Stewart is right, Dawkins didn't even get all his facts straight when talking about the Bible in his book. I've never read the Bible either, but as a scientist, I would never dismiss something until I understood it's main point, and why that point is wrong. Isn't that what science is about—forming hypotheses, then testing them. It seems to me you've formed a hypothesis about the Bible, but are unwilling to test it.<br />
<br />
<i>Nabal:</i> You guys are crazy.<br />
<br />
<i>Abel:</i> No, they're just saying you need to read the Bible <b><i>and</i></b> understand it before you dismiss it. And when it comes to understanding the Bible, I'd be happy to help you.<br />
<br />
<i><a href="http://bengallarda.blogspot.com/2009/01/two-trees-i-3.html">next</a></i>Ben Gallardahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16117936652291504641noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-445496982702889387.post-82265253086330178862008-12-14T15:23:00.000-08:002011-03-28T03:26:00.823-07:00The Two Trees I-1<i>Act I, Scene 1</i><br />
<i>In a study room, in the library, four students pause from studying for a neuroscience final. One leans back in his chair, perusing something on his BlackBerry. Another brings out a large, leather-bound volume and opens it on the table in front of them.</i><br />
<br />
<i>Nabal:</i> What is that, Abel?<br />
<br />
<i>Abel:</i> It's the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_version_debate">Authorized Version</a>.<br />
<br />
<i>Brian:</i> Of what?<br />
<br />
<i>Abel:</i> The <a href="http://quod.lib.umich.edu/k/kjv/">Holy Bible</a>, of course. I find that reading it during study breaks helps me concentrate.<br />
<br />
<i>Nabal:</i> How can reading that garbage written by goatherds and camel traders help you study? You should get rid of it, it is only going to make you <a href="http://ninjawords.com/stupider">stupider</a>. Right Brain? We scientists trust reason, not superstition.<br />
<br />
<i>Brian:</i> I've actually never read it.<br />
<br />
<i>Nabal:</i> How about you Stewart, you seem pretty smart, you wouldn't waste time reading the Bible, would you?<br />
<br />
<i>Stewart:</i> Huh? Oh, I was reading <a href="http://online.recoveryversion.org/">something</a>. Sorry?<br />
<br />
<i>Nabal:</i> Well, Abel here is reading the Bible and Brain and I were telling him he should forget about it. I mean, science has totally disproven everything in that outdated book anyway. People who believe the Bible don't know anything, it's nonscientific.<br />
<br />
<i>Abel:</i> The Bible is scientific.<br />
<br />
<i>Nabal:</i> Are you kidding?!? The Bible says the earth is only 6000 years old, that the earth is flat, the evolution didn't happen, that the earth is the center of the universe, that virgins can have babies...I mean, c'mon, we are studying neuroscience of all things. We all know that only science proves anything about the world. That Bible is just filling your head with lies and superstitions. I mean...<br />
<br />
<i>Stewart:</i> What about history?<br />
<br />
<i>Nabal:</i> What?<br />
<br />
<i>Brian:</i> I think Stewart is questioning your assertion that only science tells us anything. We've learned a lot from history as well, no?<br />
<br />
<i>Abel:</i> That's right. Not only is the Bible scientific, it is historically accurate as well. Did you know that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Mitchell_Ramsay">Sir William M. Ramsay</a> originally went to Palestine to disprove the Gospel of Luke and ended up being one of the strongest proponents of its accuracy. Or that they found a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Dan_Stele">stela</a> about a decade ago that talks about King David. And furthermore...<br />
<br />
<i>Nabal:</i> That stuff is all made up. These archaeologists find some pottery shards with scratch marks on them and...<br />
<br />
<i>Brian:</i> So you don't think history, or archaeology for that matter, are useful or informative?<br />
<br />
<i>Nabal:</i> No Brain, I don't, and since you are the smartest one here, neither should you. Only science proves things, all those other disciplines only make guesses.<br />
<br />
<i>Abel:</i> I disagree. The Bible should be the standard of truth and everything else should have to agree with it. Did you know that besides being scientifically and historically accurate, the Bible changes lives, it is the best-selling book ever, even a lot of famous scholars read the Bible. Didn't you take MMW Nabal? They make you read the Bible, don't they?<br />
<br />
<i>Nabal:</i> Yeah, but they only make you read it to show how contradictory it is. I never did any of the readings anyway...waste of time.<br />
<br />
<i>Abel:</i> You've never heard of apologetics, have you Nabal?<br />
<br />
<i><a href="http://bengallarda.blogspot.com/2009/01/two-trees-i-2.html">next</a></i>Ben Gallardahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16117936652291504641noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-445496982702889387.post-80409011082514082682008-12-12T08:07:00.000-08:002011-03-28T03:25:11.094-07:00The Two Trees<i>Prologue</i><br />
<br />
On campus there are two trees. The first is the <a href="http://stuartcollection.ucsd.edu/StuartCollection/Smith%20Alexis%20jpgs/SnakePathFinal.jpg">library</a>, as one can plainly see. Complete with <i><a href="http://www.dartmouth.edu/~milton/reading_room/pl/book_1/index.shtml">Paradise Lost</a></i> and the subtle <a href="http://online.recoveryversion.org/bibleverses.asp?fvid=8015&lvid=8015">Serpent</a> snaking his way up toward the trunk, the tree itself towers over the campus, branching into the air with its roots under ground. This is the <a href="http://online.recoveryversion.org/bibleverses.asp?fvid=7998&lvid=7998">tree</a> of the knowledge of good and evil.<br />
<br />
The other tree is not so easy to find. Quietly sitting on the wall of a tall building, in a shady courtyard, in one of the better <a href="http://www.yosemite.ca.us/library/yosemite_indians_and_other_sketches/images/john_muir.jpg">colleges</a> here, this second tree calmly presents its message.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEih38x-XYjJR_h6xCsh8r4VAMabI8IiDS_6KOg7QcejYiHiLvY6sAPgdmeJscxpwnMDCg4lovOBz48PINtMbqdmt5hVow_neFIhf1EMCkzyy3H6eeSHi8nUg8W9gBDN6gYSoc5szFj2MnM/s1600-h/p3_18.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5278937560869187586" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEih38x-XYjJR_h6xCsh8r4VAMabI8IiDS_6KOg7QcejYiHiLvY6sAPgdmeJscxpwnMDCg4lovOBz48PINtMbqdmt5hVow_neFIhf1EMCkzyy3H6eeSHi8nUg8W9gBDN6gYSoc5szFj2MnM/s400/p3_18.jpg" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 308px; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; width: 400px;" /></a> <br />
Yet this second tree offers something different from the first. While the larger tree opens its doors to those seeking knowledge, the smaller declares that Wisdom makes one happy. The two are not the same. And if one is familiar with the role Wisdom plays in the book of Proverbs, he will recognize that a deeper thought is with the second tree. <a href="http://online.recoveryversion.org/bibleverses.asp?fvid=24573&lvid=24596">Proverbs 8</a> says, "I, Wisdom, dwell with prudence...Jehovah possessed me in the <a href="http://online.recoveryversion.org/bibleverses.asp?fvid=2901&lvid=2903">beginning</a> of His way, Before His works of old. I was set up from eternity, From the beginning, before the earth was...When He <a href="http://online.recoveryversion.org/bibleverses.asp?fvid=6821&lvid=6829">established </a>the heavens, I was there...Then I was by Him, as a master workman; And I was daily His <a href="http://online.recoveryversion.org/bibleverses.asp?fvid=65&lvid=65">delight</a>...For whoever finds me finds <a href="http://online.recoveryversion.org/bibleverses.asp?fvid=3105&lvid=3106">life</a>..."<br />
<br />
<i><a href="http://bengallarda.blogspot.com/2008/12/two-trees_14.html">next</a></i>Ben Gallardahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16117936652291504641noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-445496982702889387.post-60740880794118769792008-12-09T22:16:00.000-08:002011-03-28T03:24:29.115-07:00Prelude to a PlayThis play will most likely be in three Acts of several Scenes each. While I have not yet thought of an appropriate title, one should be forthcoming with the first scene of Act I, or perhaps the Prologue.<br />
<br />
So as not to give away too much in this brief prelude, I will simply introduce the four main characters of the play: <a href="http://blog.sciseek.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/brain.png">Brian</a>, <a href="http://online.recoveryversion.org/bibleverses.asp?fvid=15845&lvid=15845">Nabal</a>, <a href="http://www.thinkbabynames.com/meaning/1/Abel">Abel</a>, and <a href="http://online.recoveryversion.org/BibleVerses.asp?fvid=6109&lvid=6109&q=stewardship">Stewart</a>.<br />
<br />
<i>Dramatis Personae</i><br />
<ul><li>Brian - sarcastically referred to as "Brain" by other characters.</li>
<li>Nabal - likes to argue.</li>
<li>Abel - pious, devout, and quite sure of himself.</li>
<li>Stewart - quiet, almost mysterious.</li>
</ul><div><i><a href="http://bengallarda.blogspot.com/2008/12/two-trees.html">next</a></i></div>Ben Gallardahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16117936652291504641noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-445496982702889387.post-38526066519315621442008-11-28T09:55:00.000-08:002008-11-28T10:56:52.549-08:00and through the operation<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZFIV5YbbSpGepuSD_sthhz_TXc_Ua0qWBXHcdqyRCx0rzKTwygwuBWPuRf8G9anjxD8aUSujvVCZCgrbt-u4H7eV4MNnzAalfc0NpV3nmDlAX29u18HD0Y4OubaPjVEg5po3h96n7kko/s1600-h/kai.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 133px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZFIV5YbbSpGepuSD_sthhz_TXc_Ua0qWBXHcdqyRCx0rzKTwygwuBWPuRf8G9anjxD8aUSujvVCZCgrbt-u4H7eV4MNnzAalfc0NpV3nmDlAX29u18HD0Y4OubaPjVEg5po3h96n7kko/s200/kai.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5273781422837619170" /></a><br /><br />I was asked a great question about Ephesians 4:16 and after looking into it a bit more, I am convinced that the rendering from <a href="http://www.lib.umich.edu/pap/exhibits/reading/Paul/">Papyrus 46</a> is the correct one. But let me explain.<br /><br />Ephesians 4:16 (<a href="http://www.ebible.org/asv/Eph.htm">ASV</a>) from whom all the body fitly framed and knit together through that which every joint supplieth, <b><i>according to the working</i></b> in due measure of each several part, maketh the increase of the body unto the building up of itself in love.<br /><br />Ephesians 4:16 (<a href="http://online.recoveryversion.org/bibleverses.asp?fvid=6144&lvid=6144">RcV</a>) Out from whom all the Body, being joined together and being knit together through every joint of the rich supply <b><i>and through the operation</i></b> in the measure of each one part, causes the growth of the Body unto the building up of itself in love. <br /><br />Nearly every English translation of the New Testament follows the American Standard Version (ASV) for Ephesians 4:16, the phrase in questions being "according to the working." Only the Recovery Version (RcV) is different, translating this phrase "and through the operation." This is because virtually every Greek manuscript of Ephesians has in it's text "kat' energian" which is correctly translated "according to [the] operation." Only one manuscript (albeit an incredibly old one, ca. AD 175), Papyrus 46, has a different rendering, "kai energias." The Recovery Version chose to follow the minor variation in Papyrus 46, rather than the rest of the bulk of New Testament manuscripts. But after looking into the matter further, I am convinced that both from a textual critical standpoint and from a proper view of the divine revelation, Papyrus 46, and hence, the Recovery Version's rendering of this phrase is the correct one.<br /><br />First, it isn't hard to conceive that the iota at the end of the word "kai" (and) was accidentally crossed and the following word was later corrected to match it ("energias" would have to be changed to "energian" to be grammatically correct). Further support for "kai energias" comes from the fact that only Paul uses this word (energia) and in every case that it follows "kata" (according to), it is preceded by a definite article (<a href="http://online.recoveryversion.org/bibleverses.asp?fvid=6526&lvid=6526">2 Thes. 2:9</a> is slightly different, but I won't get into that here). In Ephesians 4:16, there is definitely no article and therefore it would be an anomaly in Paul's style if he were to have left it out here.<br /><br />But from the side of the divine revelation, it makes even more sense that this phrase should be "and through the operation," not "according to the operation." A simple comment on another passage in Zerwick's <b>A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament</b> helps with this. Philippians 1:19 speaks of "your petition and [the] bountiful supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ." Only one article is used for both "petition" and "bountiful supply" (before petition) and Zerwick comments "the one art. perh. showing the close relation in which the two stand in Paul's mind." So, apply the same idea to Ephesians 4:16. Instead of having members (joints) of the Body supplying it "according to" the operation of each one part in a way that implies distinction and even separation between the joints and each one part; we have the joints and each one part working together in an intimate relationship to cause the growth and building up of the Body of Christ. Both are necessary, and their respective functions can't be separated.<br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism"><br />Textual criticism</a> is a proper and necessary way to determine the accurate rendering of the Greek text of the New Testament. However, sometimes asking about the spiritual significance of possibly different readings can provide direction as well. Ephesians 4:16 stands as an example of this, and I am happy to primarily read a version of the Bible (the RcV) that considers both the manuscript base and the divine revelation when translating.<br /><br />To close, a quote from the introduction to the Recovery Version of the Bible. "Translating the Bible depends not only on an adequate comprehension of the original language but also on a proper understanding of the divine revelation in the holy Word."<br /><br />Papyrus 46 - Eph. 4:15-16 (from <a href="http://www.lib.umich.edu/pap/">University of Michigan Papyrus Collection</a>)<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2geN7fvzf-xuu348unfpvc1wBxXxK3WrxYWbtSGA_FUXdVzIBzWbppMG312jSE5sg2QT3Y7WjFgh37OS5TrFSzBT2L-ivV4MnT66o7hW2sjtR7qogywVM2RS5vBzaZwjt9Et4DLyzxNk/s1600-h/Graph0.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 223px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2geN7fvzf-xuu348unfpvc1wBxXxK3WrxYWbtSGA_FUXdVzIBzWbppMG312jSE5sg2QT3Y7WjFgh37OS5TrFSzBT2L-ivV4MnT66o7hW2sjtR7qogywVM2RS5vBzaZwjt9Et4DLyzxNk/s400/Graph0.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5273782255380244754" /></a>Ben Gallardahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16117936652291504641noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-445496982702889387.post-36951112455219848112008-11-27T08:31:00.001-08:002008-11-27T13:23:50.850-08:00Goldi(locks) and the Three Bears<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/The_Three_Bears_-_Project_Gutenberg_eText_17034.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 175px; height: 200px;" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/The_Three_Bears_-_Project_Gutenberg_eText_17034.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />Once upon a time there was a little girl named Goldi who lived in a house in the forest. Now Goldi was a bit eccentric and one peculiar trait about her was that she did everything in threes. One morning, after getting out of her three beds (a big one for her head, a medium one for her back, and small one for her feet) she went downstairs to read the newspaper. Climbing into her three chairs (a big one for her back, a medium one for her rear, and a small one for her feet), she picked up her newspaper and began to read. After scanning the comics and international news headlines, she realized she was hungry, climbed out of her three chairs, and went into the kitchen. There she saw a giant pot of porridge her mother had made sitting on the stove. Dishing it out into her three bowls (a big bowl, a medium bowl, and a small bowl), she set them on the table and took a bite. "Ouch, this porridge is too hot!" she exclaimed. And with that, Goldi decided to go for a walk in the forest. Grabbing her coat and closing the door behind her, she left the house.<br /><br />Now a family of three bears just happened to be passing by the house and they smelled the porridge through the kitchen window. This family consisted of a Daddy Bear, a Mommy Bear, and a Baby Bear. Being hungry, the Daddy Bear nosed open the door and went in to the kitchen, followed by the Mommy and Baby Bear. The Daddy bear went up to the big bowl of porridge on the table and took a bite. "Growl!" he growled (bears can't talk, of course), because the porridge was too hot. He knocked the bowl onto the floor, spilling the porridge all over, and began to lap it up. Meanwhile, the Mommy Bear had eaten up the porridge in the medium bowl as it was a more agreeable temperature (the porridge in this story obeys the laws of thermodynamics). The Baby Bear whined at his parents because the porridge in the small bowl was too cold. The Mommy Bear growled at him and he reluctantly ate it up. After their breakfast, the three bears migrated into the living room and spied the three chairs. Selecting the chair appropriate for their size, each bear took a seat. However, none of the three chairs was sturdy enough to hold a bear's weight and all three broke with a crunch. The Daddy Bear roared, the Mommy Bear growled, and the Baby Bear whined some more. After strewing the pieces of broken chair around the room, the bears went upstairs to Goldi's bedroom. Seeing the three beds, the Bear family laid down and soon all three were snoring loudly.<br /><br />Now Goldi returned home from her walk and was surprised to see the front door open. Cautiously venturing into the kitchen, Goldi saw her three bowls either licked clean or scattered in pieces on the floor. "Somebody's been eating my porridge," she said. Next she went into the living room and saw the broken mess of her three chairs. "Somebody's been sitting in my chairs, and they've broken them to pieces." Stooping to inspect the damage, she heard a rumbling noise coming from upstairs. She tiptoed up the stairs and peeked into her bedroom. When she saw the three bears in her beds, she screamed loudly, "Somebody is sleeping in my beds!" This frightened the Bear family so much, that they woke with a start and tumbled past Goldi down the stairs and out of the house. <br /><br />After this incident (with appropriate "Bear Sighting" reports being filed with the local Forest Service), Goldi immediately had her father install three locks on the door of their house. Now, every time Goldi goes out for a walk, she takes her keychain out of her pocket and locks the door behind her, with a big lock, a medium lock, and a small lock. She has never had trouble with bears again, but her friends have since called her Goldilocks, since they have to wait for her to unlock the door whenever they come to play.<br /><br />The EndBen Gallardahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16117936652291504641noreply@blogger.com1