Sunday, January 27, 2008

Inching up to the Fence

A saying I have used a lot is that I think being on opposite sides of the fence from another should be a process where both folks get closer and closer to the fence, until both folks are leaning on the fence chatting - rather than screaming at each other from a distance. Then, maybe, occasionally, one of them can see whether it is possible to kick some of the slats out of the fence that separates them.

That obviously makes me a moderate - a position in which I am quite comfortable. Now, the ideologues on both sides view those folks leaning on the fence chatting as less than pure, and less than right. They, of course, are pure and right - and a bit hoarse.

There are a couple of posts over at the Stand to Reason blog that warmed my heart - because they both point to the dialogue occurring in the middle. The middle is, of course, where dialogue occurs. The first dialogue is a direct one. Steven Wagner

specializes in training college students to engage their campuses in large-scale discussion on abortion . . . Steve is a summa cum laude graduate of the University of Southern California, and he is currently working on his Masters Degree in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics at Talbot School of Theology.
and examines in "Kissling and Michelman Refuse to Dismiss Pro-Lifers as Irrelevant" an Los Angeles Times opinion - "Abortion's battle of messages" by
Frances Kissling, a fellow at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, is the former president of Catholics for a Free Choice. Kate Michelman is the former president of NARAL Pro-Choice America and the author of "Protecting the Right to Choose."
Michelman and Kissling outline the issue for the pro-choice movement pretty clearly:
Science facilitated the swing of the pendulum. Three-dimensional ultrasound images of babies in utero began to grace the family fridge. Fetuses underwent surgery. More premature babies survived and were healthier. They commanded our attention, and the question of what we owe them, if anything, could not be dismissed.

These trends gave antiabortionists an advantage, and they made the best of it. Now, we rarely hear them talk about murdering babies. Instead, they present a sophisticated philosophical and political challenge. Caring societies, they say, seek to expand inclusion into "the human community." Those once excluded, such as women and minorities, are now equal. Why not welcome the fetus (who, after all, is us) into our community?

Advocates of choice have had a hard time dealing with the increased visibility of the fetus. The preferred strategy is still to ignore it and try to shift the conversation back to women. At times, this makes us appear insensitive, a bit too pragmatic in a world where the desire to live more communitarian and "life-affirming" lives is palpable. To some people, pro-choice values seem to have been unaffected by the desire to save the whales and the trees, to respect animal life and to end violence at all levels. Pope John Paul II got that, and coined the term "culture of life." President Bush adopted it, and the slogan, as much as it pains us to admit it, moved some hearts and minds. Supporting abortion is tough to fit into this package.
and
In recent years, the antiabortion movement successfully put the nitty-gritty details of abortion procedures on public display, increasing the belief that abortion is serious business and that some societal involvement is appropriate. Those who are pro-choice have not convinced America that we support a public discussion of the moral dimensions of abortion. Likewise, we haven't convinced people that we are the ones actually doing things to make it possible for women to avoid needing abortions . . . If pro-choice values are to regain the moral high ground, genuine discussion about these challenges needs to take place within the movement. It is inadequate to try to message our way out of this problem. Our vigorous defense of the right to choose needs to be accompanied by greater openness regarding the real conflict between life and choice, between rights and responsibility.
Wagner welcomes the article
In fact, they make the pro-life case better than many pro-life advocates . . . I applaud the honest assessment Kissling and Michelman have made of the best of the pro-life movement . . . they have worked hard to understand pro-life arguments . . . That's the attitude I encourage both sides to adopt in my book, Common Ground Without Compromise in which I . . . help pro-life advocates take seriously the legitimate concerns pro-choice advocates typically emphasize. These include honestly confronting the very difficult circumstances many women face and being realistic about solutions to the problems of unwanted pregnancy

It appears from their article that Kissling and Michelman are calling for an internal discussion of the effective pro-life challenges they've highlighted, but I would encourage them to go further. Talk to pro-life advocates about them. We're ready to listen, understand, and build common ground first in order to really hear your concerns and perspective.
The other bit of "slat kicking" has Stand to Reason pointing to a John Mark Reynolds's post - "Is Huckabee Confused About the Proper Role of Christianity and Politics?" - discussing Mike Huckabee's comment on making the Constitution conform to God's will
"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution," Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."
.It is a great post on which discusses:
  • general vs. specific revelation
  • that some truths could be gained through human reason, itself a common grace of God to all humankind.; and
  • that "Christians discovered through history that freedom of conscience was one of God’s great gifts to mankind."
among other things.

Melinda, in an earlier post - "Presidents and Pastors" also looked at Huckabee's quote
The Constitution should never be changed to conform to God's standards - at least that's not the reason we should change it. What's right and good is certain God's standard, and the rationale for Constitutional amendments should be made because it's right and good, not because it's God's standard. We should amend the Constitution for appropriate and good reasons for societal welfare.
Both posts echo many of the criticisms from the left of Mike Huckabee's comment - something neither side may be entirely comfortable with.

Certainly, some folks reading this at the two blogs where it is posted will object from both sides of both fences. They will call those folks on their side traitors for giving up the purity of their position - and accuse the opposition of much worse. Certainly, they will not agree to the views of those across the fence from them.

However, this post is not about views on abortion or theocracy - it is about the "music" of chatting and slat-kicking.

Read more!

Bible in a Year:
Week of January 27th

Many people have simply never read the Bible from cover to cover; and yet many people have many opinions about what is there. The first time I read it through the actual scope and flow of the Word became apparent - the underlying plan and it's unfolding.

The idea is that over the years this resource can grow as folks add their own comments, links to commentaries and other tools, etc in the comments to this index.

  1. Do you have a viewpoint on a particular piece of scripture? Go to that place and leave a comment.
  2. Heard or read a great sermon on a section of scripture? Link the audio file or text in the comments.
  3. The possibilities are many.

1/27: Exodus 23:14-25:40; D: Sirach 9

1/28: Exodus 26:1-28:30; D: Sirach 10

1/29: Exodus 28:31-30:21; D: Sirach 10

1/30: Exodus 30:22-33:11; D: Sirach 10

1/31: Exodus 33:12-36:7; D: Sirach 11

2/1: Exodus 36:8-38:20; D: Sirach 11

2/2: Exodus 38:21-40:33; D: Sirach 11

Things to look for each day:
  1. Lessons to be learned
  2. Examples to be followed
  3. Promises to be enjoyed
  4. Jesus to be revealed
A good journaling question: How will I be different today because of what I have just read?

Next Week: Week of February 3rd
Index to whole series

Read more!

Sunday, January 20, 2008

Bible in a Year:
Week of January 20th

Many people have simply never read the Bible from cover to cover; and yet many people have many opinions about what is there. The first time I read it through the actual scope and flow of the Word became apparent - the underlying plan and it's unfolding.

The idea is that over the years this resource can grow as folks add their own comments, links to commentaries and other tools, etc in the comments to this index.

  1. Do you have a viewpoint on a particular piece of scripture? Go to that place and leave a comment.
  2. Heard or read a great sermon on a section of scripture? Link the audio file or text in the comments.
  3. The possibilities are many.

1/20: Exodus 2:1-4:31; D: Sirach 7

1/21: Exodus 5:1-7:24; D: Sirach 7

1/22: Exodus 7:25-10:20; D: Sirach 7

1/23: Exodus 10:21-13:16; D: Sirach 8

1/24: Exodus 13:17-16:36; D: Sirach 8

1/25: Exodus 17:1-20:21; D: Sirach 9

1/26: Exodus 20:22-23:13; D: Sirach 9

Things to look for each day:
  1. Lessons to be learned
  2. Examples to be followed
  3. Promises to be enjoyed
  4. Jesus to be revealed
A good journaling question: How will I be different today because of what I have just read?

Next Week: Week of January 27th
Index to whole series

Read more!

Sunday, January 13, 2008

Bible in a Year:
Week of January 13th

Many people have simply never read the Bible from cover to cover; and yet many people have many opinions about what is there. The first time I read it through the actual scope and flow of the Word became apparent - the underlying plan and it's unfolding.

The idea is that over the years this resource can grow as folks add their own comments, links to commentaries and other tools, etc in the comments to this index.

  1. Do you have a viewpoint on a particular piece of scripture? Go to that place and leave a comment.
  2. Heard or read a great sermon on a section of scripture? Link the audio file or text in the comments.
  3. The possibilities are many.

1/13: Genesis 34:1-36:30; D: Sirach 4

1/14: Genesis 36:31-38:30; D: Sirach 5

1/15: Genesis 39:1-41:40; D: Sirach 5

1/16: Genesis 41:41-43:34; D: Sirach 6

1/17: Genesis 44:1-45:28; D: Sirach 6

1/18: Genesis 46:1-48:22; D: Sirach 6

1/19: Genesis 49:1-Exodus 1:22; D: Sirach 6

Things to look for each day:
  1. Lessons to be learned
  2. Examples to be followed
  3. Promises to be enjoyed
  4. Jesus to be revealed
A good journaling question: How will I be different today because of what I have just read?

Next Week: Week of January 20th
Index to whole series

Read more!

Tuesday, January 08, 2008

Rick Moran Goes Off

I like Rick Moran at Rightwing Nuthouse. We share at least one thing - the principles upon which he bases his political conservatism are close to my own. We do not share at least one thing - a belief in God. Rick is a professed atheist.

We share another belief I think: the marriage of theologically conservative Christians with the Republican Party in 1980 and increasingly in 1984 was not really because of shared political philosophy.

It was because the Republican Party staked its verbal claim (at least) to being opposed to abortion and the repeal of Roe v Wade; while the Democratic Party staked his big tent firmly for abortion choice and the defense of Roe. For those who believe that the death of 1,200,000 unborn children a year is horrific, and the most important issue facing the country, they really had no other place to go. The rise since then of a movement for re-defining marriage as any two loving people, even if they are the same biological sex - again generally opposed verbally by the Republican Party and supported verbally by the Democratic Party - has increased that feeling that being Republican was where it was at for theologically conservative Christians. Since they constituted 40ish% of the Republican Party, and were essential to its victories since 1980, they have wielded some weight.

However, both the Republican and Democratic parties have both completely pandered on the latter point (a Democratic president signed the Federal DOMA) and the Republicans have largely pandered on the former. The results are that the two Supreme Court appointees of George Bush will NOT (imo) vote to overturn Roe if they get the chance; and (imo) - they were never intended to; and John Roberts - claiming hired gun status - successfully argued the case against the Colorado DOMA before the Supreme Court before he was nominated. While both are strict constructionists whom I support, there is hardly a reason to believe they will violate that strict constructionist philosophy to make social conservatives happy in the areas of gay marriage and abortion.

In exchange for (imo) nothing, some of the leadership of theologically conservative Christians in this country have traded the centrality of Christ's power in their life, as well as the spreading of the Gospel, with the quest for political power - or really just recognition at the "kid's table" of American politics. Now, the first time one of those social conservatives takes a shot at political power itself the screams from the right of American politics is deafening.

That brings us to Rick's "Facing up to the Unbearable Truth" - a rant every bit as hateful really as any I have seen from the most rabid anti-faith secular liberal. It made me want to put my shoes on, take that straw outa my mouth, and march right up and hit him in his citified face with a bowl of grits - and I will not be voting for Mike Huckabee. To Rick's credit, he apologized, and in doing so brought up the real issue:

There is going to be a reckoning within the conservative movement between classic conservatives who believe that a society must have a just, moral order to survive and social conservatives who wish to “take back (sic) the country for Jesus” while imposing a moral order on the rest of us via top down, government solutions . . . the solution will eventually be found in local communities who will decide for themselves the definition of “moral order” without diktats from Washington. [I am going to ignore that "imposing morality" nonsense for now]
Every married couple - especially after being married for 30 years - has had those periods of strained civility for the sake of peace - a horrible caricature of relationship to be sure. Suddenly, when the peace breaks and the long-stifled issues surface - the marriage has either reached its end; or a new and deeper relationship will be formed. Welcome to that moment in the social conservative and political conservative marriage. It is hard for me to see how the marriage can be saved.

First of all, both parties have lost their way. Christianity is not, at its heart, a legislative religion - the failure of Mosaic Law to make us righteous was one of the reasons for Christ's advent - to write the law on our hearts instead of in stone. It is not possible to use secular political power to spread the Kingdom of God. If you are going to use secular law to restrain immorality, the process of doing so shouldn't obstruct the real building of a real Kingdom. Admittedly, over a million lives a year is an astronomical pressure on pro-life Christians to ban abortion. I cannot blame them for trying even if it will never work before you win the hearts and minds of a super-majority; and the current political/legal battle may actually get in the way of winning those necessary additional hearts and minds. However, the amplification of homosexuality to some special class of sin has no Biblical justification whatsoever in my opinion.

Politically conservative Republicans have also lost their way - becoming "big government" "big spenders" at the Federal level (at least). Frankly, it matters not whether your deficits are created by cutting taxes or increasing spending - conservatives have not been paying the bills and instead have left them for future generations. When the only President in the last 27 years to actually balance a budget and pay down the debt was a Democrat - it shows the bankruptcy (literally) of the current version of (un) "fiscal" conservatism.

Also, whether it be actively usurping state's rights through use of the Commerce Clause, or centralizing control of FEMA so it was unable to respond quickly to a regional crisis like Katrina - the idea of subsidiarity has been lost to the Republican Party. This goes for attempting to usurp state power through proposed constitutional amendments governing marriage and abortion: even if pandering to social conservatives, these political impossibilities (coupled with liberal top-down social engineering) should have never been proposed. Republicans, in general, have been just as much about giving power to the Federal government at the expense of lower levels of organization as the Democrats. Witness President Bush's use of the Commerce Clause and the FDA to assault California medical marijuana and Oregon's acceptance of physician supported suicide.

The use of torture and the building of vast Federal domestic spying programs are anathema to classic conservatism and its support for individual rights vs. the intrusion of the state. Admittedly, the need for security in a post 9/11 age requires some giving up of individual liberty in order to protect the general population - but excess is excess. President Bush's claims to unrestricted executive power in such cases do not ring true - whatever classic conservatives trust, it is not unrestricted government power.

Luckily, political marriages are not made in Heaven, are not forever, and divorce is not banned. This couple needs to examine themselves, repent and return to their respective philosophical and theological roots, and then decide whether they should part for the good of both of them.

Hey, they can still remain friends.

Read more!

Sunday, January 06, 2008

Bible in a Year:
Week of January 6th

Many people have simply never read the Bible from cover to cover; and yet many people have many opinions about what is there. The first time I read it through the actual scope and flow of the Word became apparent - the underlying plan and it's unfolding.

The idea is that over the years this resource can grow as folks add their own comments, links to commentaries and other tools, etc in the comments to this index.

  1. Do you have a viewpoint on a particular piece of scripture? Go to that place and leave a comment.
  2. Heard or read a great sermon on a section of scripture? Link the audio file or text in the comments.
  3. The possibilities are many.

1/6: Genesis 17:1-19:29; D: Sirach 2

1/7: Genesis 19:30-22:24; D: Sirach 2

1/8: Genesis 23:1-24:67; D: Sirach 3

1/9: Genesis 25:1-26:35; D: Sirach 3

1/10: Genesis 27:1-29:13; D: Sirach 3

1/11: Genesis 29:14-31:21; D: Sirach 4

1/12: Genesis 31:22-33:20; D: Sirach 4

Things to look for each day:
  1. Lessons to be learned
  2. Examples to be followed
  3. Promises to be enjoyed
  4. Jesus to be revealed
A good journaling question: How will I be different today because of what I have just read?

Next Week: Week of January 13th
Index to whole series

Read more!

Wednesday, January 02, 2008

Applying the Principles, Part II

[Part seven in the Scripture and History series]

Picking up where I left off in "Applying the Principles, Part I", I am outlinging Greg Herrick's application of the principles of historical criticism to the resurrection narratives. Again, you must read the entire linked linked article for the full argument.

III. The tomb was found empty three days later:

  1. Earliest tradition: Paul believed in the empty tomb:
    • "He was raised" - ἐγείρω - in 1 Corinthians 15:4.
    • It was an early tradition Paul received before he wrote about it in 37 - 40AD.
    • Paul would not preach so boldly if he did not believe in the empty tomb

  2. Multiple attestations: The empty tomb tradition is found in:
    • all four Gospels
    • three of the Gospel strata (i.e. Mark, "M" and John).

  3. Dissimilarity:
    • is not overlaid with theology for apologetic purposes.
    • all the Gospel writers use the expression "first day of the week." While the early preaching referred to the "third day"

    This makes it dissimilar to the preaching of the early church and therefore unlikely that the early church invented it.


  4. Embarrassment: women were witnesses to the empty tomb while the disciples were hiding in fear.


  5. Semitisms: Matthew mentioning the "angel of the Lord" and Luke's "bowed their faces to the ground".


  6. Divergent traditions: the different number of angels and the different number of women in the different traditions has been pointed to as a reason to doubt their authenticity.
    • that they differ points to the story not being crafted by the early church. If that was the case they should be uniform
    • as to the reliability of the witnesses themselves, it was not unusual for different writers to focus on the participants they wished and ignore others that were there

    There is no need to postulate other competing traditions.


  7. from the perspective of the Jewish leaders, in the development of their attack on the apostles, they did not deny that the tomb was empty. Besides, the religious leaders could have put an end to the whole mess, if they could have produced a body. No such evidence was ever presented according to our sources.
Herrick - "From the preceding evidence it is clear that the tradition of the empty tomb passes the historiographical tests of: 1) multiple attestation; 2)dissimilarity; 3) tendencies of the developing tradition; 4) Semitisms and 5)embarrassment. Therefore, a belief in the empty tomb is reasonable historically speaking. It bears all the marks of being early, and not a later creation of the church. It is to be regarded as authentic."

IV. Jesus was seen alive and the disciples held the belief of his resurrection.
According to [Lane] Craig there are essentially four lines of evidence one can adduce in support of the historical reliability of the resurrection appearances: 1) The Apostle Paul's testimony; 2) the genuine character of particular resurrection appearances, 3) the evidence for the general trustworthiness of the Gospel accounts and 4) the fact that the appearances were of Jesus' resurrected body. Since we have already discussed #3 and #4 . . . we will concentrate on the #1 and #2.
  1. Paul's Testimony in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8
    It is generally believed that the earlier a tradition is, the more likely it is to be authentic. This, of course, is a major idea behind the criteria of authenticity and form criticism . . . We maintain that the "witnesses" of 15: 5-8 are a part of that early tradition. There was not enough time to develop a legend in this regard, for the tradition here can probably be dated before A.D. 40 and some argue before A.D. 37 . . . The Corinthians could have checked it out, and yet there is no reference in our sources to the Corinthians . . . denying the resurrection.
  2. The Historical Veracity of Resurrection Appearances, and Other Phenomena
    • Cause/effect or Correlation:
      • James: The fact James was doubtful of Jesus' identity during his life and that he later became a pillar and apostle in the church requires a sufficient cause. The only reasonable explanation is that Christ did indeed rise from the dead and appear to him, just as tradition says.
      • Paul:
        . . . it is even harder to account for Saul . . . Did Paul suddenly feel remorse for his actions? Probably not. This might lead him to desist from his attacks on the church, but it cannot account for his faith in Jesus as Messiah. Did he just realize from his background that Jesus fits the Messianic bill, so to speak? This is unlikely, since the bodily resurrection of an isolated individual is not found in the Judaism of Paul's day. There was only the general resurrection of all people at the end (criterion of Palestinian environment [context and expectation]). And, the concept of a dying and rising Messiah was probably foreign to Paul . . . He even goes so far as to teach Jewish/Gentile equality in God's plan. . . . Paul suffered greatly as a result of his faith in Christ . . . This is only reasonably accounted for on the basis of his seeing the resurrected Jesus
      • The emergence and growth of the church in Jerusalem and around the known world at that time is difficult to explain on the basis of naturalistic causes. Fear of the religious and political authorities would have squelched the movement
      • Early church treatment of sin:
        They did not tolerate it . . . This is not exactly the way a movement goes about the process of attracting followers. There was belief in Jesus' resurrection and only such a belief would cause sane people to become a part of the church . . . we ought to consider Paul's ethics which he enjoined on the churches in the name of the risen Lord. It is an incredibly demanding ethic and not very easy to live out. It is difficult to believe that people would submit to this without a sufficient reason. The resurrection of Christ provides the a priori reason to move toward a lifestyle like Paul outlines in his letters and also offers the hope required to fulfill that ethic.
    • Embarrassment: In first century Judaism, since the claim of women witnesses would not carry much weight, it is likely that this tradition is true. It does nothing to help their cause in promoting Jesus as risen from the dead. The fact that Paul leaves the women out in his list of witnesses confirms this interpretation.
As I said in a comment at Street Prophets, it is not my intent in this series to convince anyone of anything - other than that believing in the physically risen Christ from the Gospel narratives is not historiographically irrational or insupportable.

That is unless one denies the possibility of the supernatural. That, however, has nothing to do with the evidence - that is about what you are willing to believe.

Read more!

Tuesday, January 01, 2008

Applying the Principles, Part I

[Part six in the Scripture and History series]

I have been outlining Greg Herrick's "The Historical Veracity of the Resurrection Narratives" the last few posts in the series. First, I should say that here Herrick is only dealing with one possible naturalistic explanation of the Resurrection accounts:

From this brief discussion we contend that Jesus' resurrection, spoken of in the Gospels (and indeed the entire New Testament) is a bodily resurrection - the corporeal theory.
The brief discussion in the paper also mentioned five (5) other explanations:
  1. the political theory,
  2. the swoon theory,
  3. the mythical theory,
  4. the subjective vision theory,
  5. the objective vision theory
He dismisses the first two without discussion, but he examines why the thinks the next three fail to the corporeal theory.

You will have to read the linked article for those reasons. He moves on to examine the historicity of the Gospel accounts of the corporeal Resurrection of Jesus. The last two posts looked at Herrick's view of some common "criteria of authenticity" to measure that by; and
"We turn now to an application of those criteria to the resurrection narratives, including the material on the death of Jesus, his burial, the empty tomb, the appearances of Jesus to his disciples and the disciples' belief in the resurrection."
His introduction to the section:
No one saw the resurrection of Jesus. All that was seen was the resurrected Jesus. If, then, a resurrection took place, it must be demonstrated with a reasonable degree of certainty, historiographically speaking, that Jesus actually died and then was seen at some later time alive and in bodily form. A brief sketch of the Gospel testimony runs something like this: 1) Jesus died; 2) was buried in a sealed and guarded tomb; 3) the tomb was found empty three days later and 4) Jesus was seen alive and the disciples held the belief of his resurrection . . . This section seeks to analyze these various ideas according to the details of the Gospels and the criteria of authenticity.
I am only going to outline that application - again you have to read the linked article if you want to capture his entire argument, and that of those he argues against.

I. Jesus died
the criterion of multiple attestation, coherence, and multiple forms demonstrate with reasonable certainty that Jesus did indeed die by crucifixion. That crucifixion was indeed practiced by the Romans . . . is confirmed by Josephus, [satisfying] the criterion of Palestinian environment.
II. He was buried in a sealed and guarded tomb
  • Multiple Attestation:
    • The earliest tradition: 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 - the word θάπτω (thaptō) occurs 10 other times in the Gospels and Acts . . . It always refers to the physical burial of a dead person.
    • The Gospels all confirm this testimony

  • Developing tradition or dissimilarity:
    • The earliness of the 1 Corinthians tradition argues against the development of legend. Some of those eyewitnesses were indeed women [also criterion of embarrassment] who played a role in the early church in which the traditions developed
    • The tradition of his burial is not surrounded by adornment and embellishing . . . The later church cannot be read back into the description of Jesus' burial.

  • Divergent tradition: all the Gospel writers mention Joseph of Arimathea and Luke tells us that he was a member of the Sanhedrin. Given the fact that all the writers implicate the religious leaders in Jesus' death . . . Such a unanimously spoken of tradition would probably not survive due the presence of eyewitnesses, unless, of course, it were true.


  • Palestinian environment:
    • the tomb meets with archaeological discoveries
    • the new tomb coheres with the Jews not wanting to pollute other family members interred there
    • Jesus' body would not have been allowed to remain on the cross until the next day, lest the corpse defile the land
    • since he died around the sixth hour, Joseph probably had time to accomplish the burial before nightfall and the beginning of the Sabbath

Next post, the real issues:
  • III. The tomb was found empty three days later
  • IV. Jesus was seen alive and the disciples held the belief of his resurrection.

Read more!

Bible in a Year:
Week of January 1st

Many people have simply never read the Bible from cover to cover; and yet many people have many opinions about what is there. The first time I read it through the actual scope and flow of the Word became apparent - the underlying plan and it's unfolding.

The idea is that over the years this resource can grow as folks add their own comments, links to commentaries and other tools, etc in the comments to this index.

  1. Do you have a viewpoint on a particular piece of scripture? Go to that place and leave a comment.
  2. Heard or read a great sermon on a section of scripture? Link the audio file or text in the comments.
  3. The possibilities are many.

1/1: Genesis 1:1-3:24; D: Sirach 1

1/2: Genesis 4:1-5:32; D: Sirach 1

1/3: Genesis 6:1-9:17; D: Sirach 1

1/4: Genesis 9:18-12:9; D: Sirach 2

1/5: Genesis 12:10-16:16; D: Sirach 2


Things to look for each day:
  1. Lessons to be learned
  2. Examples to be followed
  3. Promises to be enjoyed
  4. Jesus to be revealed
A good journaling question: How will I be different today because of what I have just read?

Next Week: Week of January 6th
Index to whole series

Read more!

Bible in a Year Index

I created a Bible in a Year loop at Street Prophets. While mainly based on the Crosswalk format - I have added the Catholic Deuterocanonicals from another source and a quick link to the Bible.Org commentaries for those that want them. This set has a reading from the Old Testament, the New Testament, and Wisdom/Prophecy each day along with the Deuterocanonicals.

I am going to gradually create a loop here at Brain Cramps for God as well - with links to the New English Translation (NET Bible) at Bible.Org. This will be a straight through reading of the Bible, with the same extra readings from the deuterocanonicals. The week a book begins in is listed behind the date - if you want to begin in a particular place.

Read more!