One day is like a thousand years

I’ve been on the road, and the church I attended Sunday had as part of its Scripture reading this text: “But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Peter 3:8).

I had always thought of the last part of the verse as a good description of what it must be for God to be outside of time. But this time the first part hit me: “One day is as a thousand years.” God, in His eternity, lavishes attention on every moment. Just think how much is going on in a day. Not just in your life–maybe it seems like not much has happened on some days–but in all of the lives of millions of people, all of whom have their own stories. God lingers. This is how He can attend to the prayers of everyone, every one of whom He loves. Throw in the birds of the air and the lilies of the field. And galaxies and nebula.

That one day is like a thousand years to God expresses the minuteness of His care and attention. For each of us and all of us, He has all the time in the world.

News we can choose

Old school journalist Ted Koppel lambastes both MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann and Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly, concluding with this:

The commercial success of both Fox News and MSNBC is a source of nonpartisan sadness for me. While I can appreciate the financial logic of drowning television viewers in a flood of opinions designed to confirm their own biases, the trend is not good for the republic. It is, though, the natural outcome of a growing sense of national entitlement. Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s oft-quoted observation that “everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts,” seems almost quaint in an environment that flaunts opinions as though they were facts.

And so, among the many benefits we have come to believe the founding fathers intended for us, the latest is news we can choose. Beginning, perhaps, from the reasonable perspective that absolute objectivity is unattainable, Fox News and MSNBC no longer even attempt it. They show us the world not as it is, but as partisans (and loyal viewers) at either end of the political spectrum would like it to be. This is to journalism what Bernie Madoff was to investment: He told his customers what they wanted to hear, and by the time they learned the truth, their money was gone.

via Ted Koppel: Olbermann, O’Reilly and the death of real news.

One could argue that Ted Koppel himself was not completely objective and that his pioneering night time news show tended to tilt to the left.  And yet, if it is impossible to be objective in the news business, doesn’t that mean the postmodernists are right when they say that every group has its own “truth”?

Isn’t there a danger in only hearing what we want to hear?  Maybe conservatives should listen to MSNBC and liberals should listen to Fox.  Do you have any other solutions to this syndrome?

Religion blocks consumerism

In another odd experiment, it seems as if religious people are less susceptible to buying things according to their brand, which to secularists is often a means of enhancing status and self-worth:

Prof. Ron Shachar of Tel Aviv University’s Leon Recanati Graduate School of Business Administration says that a consumer’s religiosity has a large impact on his likelihood for choosing particular brands. Comsumers who are deeply religious are less likely to display an explicit preference for a particular brand, while more secular populations are more prone to define their self-worth through loyalty to corporate brands instead of religious denominations.

This research, in collaboration with Duke University and New York University scientists, recently appeared in the journal Marketing Science.

There is considerable statistical evidence that consumers buy particular brands to express who they are to the outside world, Prof. Shachar says. From clothing choices to cultural events, people communicate their personalities and values through their purchases.

Prof. Shachar and his fellow researchers decided to study the relationship between religiosity and brand reliance. . . .

Researchers discovered that those participants who wrote about their religion prior to the shopping experience were less likely to pick national brands when it came to products linked to appearance or self-expression — specifically, products which reflected status, such as fashion accessories and items of clothing. For people who weren’t deeply religious, corporate logos often took the place of religious symbols like a crucifix or Star of David, providing feelings of self-worth and well-being. According to Prof. Shachar, two additonal lab experiments done by this research team have demonstrated that like religiousity, consumers use brands to express their sense of self-worth.

via American Friends of Tel Aviv University: Shopping Religiously.

I suppose this simply proves that religious people are not as “worldly.”  It also suggests how pathetic it is to be “worldly,” having to turn to corporate logos as a substitute for religious symbols.

HT:  <a href=”http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/007649.html”>Future Pundit</a>

Atheists' ad campaign will target the Bible

The Christmas season will mark a newly-aggressive campaign by an atheist organization to present the moral failings of the Bible:

The American Humanist Association, both atheists and agnostics who think it is possible to lead a moral and ethical life without believing in a deity, rolls out its biggest ad campaign Friday night, a $200,000 splash with a TV spot during “Dateline,” followed by Metro and bus ads that will brighten the morning commute Monday.

The group’s ad campaign this year is aggressive and shrill. The ads pit particularly violent or archaic passages from religious texts against more inclusive, mellow and peaceful writings of secular humanists. They target the Koran as well as the Bible.

The Bible: “The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.” God, Hosea 13:16 (New International Version).

Humanism: “I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own – a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty.” Albert Einstein, column for the New York Times, Nov. 9, 1930.

via Christmas wars come early.

I suspect this tact might actually prove effective in turning people against the Bible.  How should this be answered?

The state bank solution

My brother put me onto the example of the North Dakota State Bank as a solution to our country’s financial woes:

While the Fed continues playing parlor tricks to try and stimulate the economy, a much simpler method of igniting long-term economic growth and stability exists in North Dakota. Yes, North Dakota, a state operating with a surplus of cash and unemployment at 4%. In the early 1900′s the economy of North Dakota was agriculture-based, and the farmers there were experiencing serious financial problems that prevented them from buying and selling crops and financing farm operations. Grain dealers from out-of-state controlled prices and kept them artificially low, while farm suppliers continually increased their prices. To no one’s surprise, interest rates on loans climbed.

By 1919 the people of North Dakota had had enough and wanted state ownership and control of marketing and credit agencies, and so the legislature established the Bank of North Dakota. Its mission: to promote the development of agriculture, commerce and industry in ND. The Bank of North Dakota is a public bank that is robustly solvent, with a strong record of financing loans for agriculture, housing and higher education, as well as funding municipal bonds. All tax revenues and fees in the state go into the State Bank, allowing North Dakota to finance construction of roads, bridges and other infrastructure, maintain schools and libraries, and assist local businesses.

The Bank of North Dakota is truly a peoples’ bank that exists for the benefit of the state and its residents, only, with loans made at low interest rates and no bloated, outrageous CEO salaries and benefits that squander funds. And no shady derivatives allowed, either; a novel concept indeed. For 91 years the bank has flourished and North Dakota today is a rare example of economic strength in a sea of debt-ridden states that must slash services and raise taxes to stay afloat, giving a whole new meaning to the term “red states.” . . .

via Pearl Korn: North Dakota — A Template For Our Economic Recovery.

Here is more about how it works, from Ellen Brown:

By law, the state must deposit all its funds in the bank, and the state guarantees its deposits. The bank’s stated mission is to deliver sound financial services that promote agriculture, commerce and industry in North Dakota. The bank operates as a bankers’ bank, partnering with private banks to loan money to farmers, real estate developers, schools and small businesses. It loans money to students (over 184,000 outstanding loans), and it purchases municipal bonds from public institutions.

Still, you may ask, how does that solve the solvency problem? Isn’t the state limited to spending only the money it has? The answer is no. Certified, card-carrying bankers are allowed to do something nobody else can do: they can create “credit” with accounting entries on their books.

Under the “fractional reserve” lending system, banks are allowed to extend credit (create money as loans) in a sum equal to many times their deposit base. Congressman Jerry Voorhis, writing in 1973, explained it like this:

“[F]or every $1 or $1.50 which people – or the government – deposit in a bank, the banking system can create out of thin air and by the stroke of a pen some $10 of checkbook money or demand deposits. It can lend all that $10 into circulation at interest just so long as it has the $1 or a little more in reserve to back it up.”

The Federal Reserve’s 10 percent reserve requirement is now largely obsolete, in part because banks have figured out how to get around it with such games as “overnight sweeps”. What chiefly limits bank lending today is the 8 percent capital requirement imposed by the Bank for International Settlements, the head of the private global central banking system in Basel, Switzerland. With an 8 percent capital requirement, a state with its own bank could fan its revenues into 12.5 times their face value in loans (100 ÷ 8 = 12.5). And since the state would actually own the bank, it would not have to worry about shareholders or profits. It could lend to creditworthy borrowers at very low interest, perhaps limited only to a service charge covering its costs; and it could lend to itself or to its municipal governments at as low as zero percent interest. If these loans were rolled over indefinitely, the effect would be the same as creating new, debt-free money.

But, you ask, wouldn’t that be dangerously inflationary? Not if the money were used to create new goods and services. Price inflation results only when “demand” (money) exceeds “supply” (goods and services). When they increase together, prices remain stable. . . .

Our workers and our factories are sitting idle because the private credit system has failed. An injection of new money from a system of public banks could thaw the credit freeze and bring spring to the markets again. The mathematical flaw in the private credit system is the enormous tribute siphoned off to private coffers in the form of interest. A public banking system could overcome that flaw by returning the interest to the public purse. This is the sort of banking that was pioneered in Benjamin Franklin’s colony of Pennsylvania, where it worked brilliantly well. We need to return to our historical roots and implement that system again.

Liberals like this, moving capital from the private to the public sector, while conservatives might like the federalist implications for empowering the states, as well as the decentralization of finance (which is not exactly laissez faire as it is). And North Dakota is a Red State with pretty conservative citizens, isn’t it? What do you think? I told my brother I would submit the idea to my readers and let him know.

The two different NIVs

tODD, a long-time reader and commenter on this blog, told me that he was using Bible Gateway, that extremely useful site that allows you to find Bible passages from a wide array of translations, when he noticed that an NIV passage he was finding was different from the same NIV passage he learned as a child. He dug into the matter, and it turns out there is a new version of the NIV, with many quite different translations, that will replace the NIV of 1984.

On November 1, the new translation was put up on Bible Gateway. In March, 2011, it will be published as the New International Version, with both the controversial Today’s New International Version (TNIV) (with all of the gender-neutral and other non-conservative language) AND the original New International Version (that had become the dominant evangelical version) going out of print.

These plans were announced some time ago, but I suspect many people do not realize that this change is underway. The Wikipedia article on the TNIV says this:

“On September 1, 2009, it was announced that development of a new revision of the NIV is in progress, and that once it is released both the TNIV and the 1984 NIV would be discontinued.[3] Keith Danby, president and chief executive officer of Biblica, once known as the International Bible Society said they erred in presenting past updates, failed to convince people revisions were needed and “underestimated” readers’ loyalty to the 1984 NIV. The update NIV will be issued in 2011.”

The Wikipedia article on the NIV gives the updated details: “A major revision was announced on September 1, 2009 and was published online on November 1, 2010 at http://www.biblegateway.com and http://www.biblica.com. The first printed editions will be published in March 2011.”

The revised NIV will not use inclusive language for God, but it will use inclusive language in other places. Grammatical purists like me will be annoyed that the plural pronoun “they” will be used for singulars of unspecified gender. See Translation Notes, which lists other new readings. I’ll let tODD report the ones that caught his eye:

1 Peter 5:9
(NIV 1984) Resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you know that your brothers throughout the world are undergoing the same kind of sufferings.
(NIV 2011) Resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you know that the family of believers throughout the world is undergoing the same kind of sufferings.

James 5:7-9 (partial)
(NIV 1984) Be patient, then, brothers, until the Lord’s coming. … Don’t grumble against each other, brothers, or you will be judged. The Judge is standing at the door!
(NIV 2011) Be patient, then, brothers and sisters, until the Lord’s coming. … Don’t grumble against one another, brothers and sisters, or you will be judged. The Judge is standing at the door!

* ‟Saints” often becomes ‟God’s people,” ‟the Lord’s people,” ‟the Lord’s holy people” and the
like (as in Romans 8:27)
* Certain uses of ‟Christ” are now ‟Messiah.”
* Some occurrences of ‟Jews,” especially in John, have become ‟Jewish leaders” or something
similar.
* Most occurrences of ‟sinful nature” have become ‟flesh.”

Perhaps the most-changed verse, that I could find, was Malachi 2:16:
(NIV 1984) “I hate divorce,” says the LORD God of Israel, “and I hate a man’s covering himself[a]with violence as well as with his garment,” says the LORD Almighty. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith.
(NIV 2011) “The man who hates and divorces his wife,” says the LORD, the God of Israel, “does violence to the one he should protect,” says the LORD Almighty. So be on your guard, and do not be unfaithful.

There are some good changes, in my opinion, such as translating some passages that are ambiguous in the original languages so that they are still ambiguous in English, leaving room for various interpretations, instead of the translator taking a position and making it look like that is what the Bible says! (That, to me, is the bane of many modern translations.) But still there remains lots of interpretations for the sake of modern readers in place of simply rendering what these non-modern texts literally say, this being part of the translating philosophy of the NIV. Here too is that tendency in American evangelicalism to cut itself off from the church of the past (eliminating “saints”?). Not to mention the presumption of correcting the Bible’s “sexist” language.

It also looks like the new NIV will continue and maybe even intensify what most annoyed me about the old NIV: the utter tone-deaf resistance to metaphor, poetry, and beauty of language:

Psalm 23: 4: (NIV 1984) “Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death. . . ”
(NIV 2011) “Even though I walk through the darkest valley. . .”


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X