devolve dih-VAHLV verb

     1 a : to pass by transmission or succession  b : to fall or be passed usually as a responsibility or obligation
     2 : to come by or as if by flowing down
   *3 : to degenerate through a gradual change or evolution

3:  I never knew that evolution could work backwards!

I just read an on line article that said that researchers had identified a gene that caused "rumination," the act of worrying about things constantly.  I was surprised to read where the author called those who ruminate "worry warts."

I have never considered myself to be a worry wart, so I immediately went to http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/ruminate to find the definition:

Once again, a long post from the Preacher.  Please be patient with me, the question comes at the end of the post.  Meanwhile, refill your coffee cup: I hope you enjoy the read.

-------------------------

I love God's word.

I have many copies, both old and new.  I have several translations, both old and new; for example, I own a reproduction copy of the original 1611 Authorized Version of the Bible, I preach from the New American Standard Bible (1995), while I love reading the English Standard Version.  I once used the New International Version, but no longer.  The publishers broke their promise to the National Association of Evangelicals to not continue down the gender neutral road and issued the TNIV and the NIV(r) which tried to be politically correct by removing all the "unnecessary" references to gender, such as son, father and so forth.  This was not as simple as it sounds because it also required changing the tenses (past, present, future, and neutral) and it required changing nouns to pronouns, and pronouns to clauses, and so forth.

I use several Bible software programs for reading and for sermon preparation.  I have used Quickverse Platinum since it was a project begun in the garage of its author (the program, not the Bible!), but I am using it less and less because of the other programs I run, which are more useful to me, and then the updates make me feel like I am buying the same materials over and over.  I also use WordSearch8, because I find the support materials useful and accessible, as well as thought provoking.   WS8 comes with a program called ZIPscript that allows me to insert text into sermon materials without retyping the passages; a similar program is InstaVerse which runs behind the other programs and lets me have Gods Word on popup demand when the cursor pauses over a biblical reference such as John 3:16.

But one of my favorites, and thus most often used, programs is BibleWorks 7.  It is a very powerful (though expensive at $349) program that keys to the original languages, with 17 Greek editions, 15 Hebrew works, 39 English versions, and many more international languages like Arabic, Spanish, Chinese, Korean, German, and many more.  BW7 also has instant help with the voice, tense, and mood of the original languages, and the Textual Criticism Apparatii.

Doesn't this make the case for those atheists who claim that the Bible is not reliable since there are so many translations?  No.

And here is why: the word of God, in the original languages, is Gods Word; there are many translators whose opinions will vary depending on several factors like their commitment to Gods Word, their life experiences, country of origin, education, and world view (to name just a few factors).  Unless Bible readers are willing and able to make the commitment to read the Bible in the original languages, they are stuck with reading translations. 

I once read about a renown scholar, who was accustomed to working with the original languages, who read a new translation in his mother tongue (Creole) which had not previously had its own translation.  Reading Gods Word in his milk tongue, he was moved to tears, despite years of faith and scholarship in English, Hebrew, and Greek.

Why is this important to me?  As the book Translating Truth says this: "(1) ... the Bible repeatedly claims that every one of its words (in the original languages) is a word spoken to us by God, and is therefore of utmost importance; and (2) that this fact provides a strong argument in favor of an "essentially literal" (or word-for-word) translation as opposed to "dynamic equivalent" (or thought-for-thought) translation."  We need translations because of our language limitations, but we must stick with the facts, the details; as Sgt. Friday (of Dragnet fame) is supposed to have said "Just the facts, Ma'am; just the facts."

Words have meanings, and definitions drive results; meaning is what Bible readers are after.  So what the Bible says is important, it is what God has deigned to say to us.  For instance, John 2:1-5 says: (1) On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there; (2) and both Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding. (3) When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to Him, "They have no wine." (4) And Jesus said to her, "Woman, what does that have to do with us? My hour has not yet come." (5) His mother said to the servants, "Whatever He says to you, do it," (NASB).

Another English translation says "Two days later".  What does the Greek say?  th hmera th trith "the day the third."  Now, that does not make sense in English because we say "the third day," but the meaning is understandable.  The Greek was also written in the active voice: "the mother of Jesus says," "Jesus says to her," "His mother says."  Again the English translators have rendered it to conform to Standard English practice of writing these things in the past tense.  The Greek language, and especially Mark in the New Testament, wrote for the dramatic effect of present tense, active voice stories.

Why does the text say "the mother of Jesus" instead of saying "Mary?"  I think no one would dispute the fact that Mary was Jesus' mother; certainly no one who takes the Gospels seriously would challenge that fact.  Why does John not name her?   Surely there was a time when Jesus would have called her "mother," or "mom."  But no more, the vocative address here is gu,nai: "woman."  But the fact that Jesus loved and cared for her is seen where Jesus gave charge of His mother's welfare and care to John as one of His seven last words from the cross.  See what Jesus said to Mary, how He addressed her? 

John 19:26-27 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, "Woman, behold, your son!" Then He said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" And from that hour the disciple took her into his own household.

See that italicized word "household?"  The reason it is in italics is that the translators have supplied that word for "the clarity of the text."  Sometimes the clarification is helpful, sometimes not so much because it is often the opinion of the translator.  But once again, Mary's name is not there, and Jesus addresses her as gu,nai. Why?

I think it's because the emphasis belongs on Jesus, and not on His mother.  When Jesus said "Woman, what does that have to do with us?  My hour has not yet come;" was he saying He would not do anything for them?  Was He saying "Okay, but not yet"?  There are many examples in the stories of the New Testament where Jesus told people that His hour had not yet come.

John 7:8 "Go up to the feast yourselves; I do not go up to this feast because My time has not yet fully come."

John 7:30 They were seeking therefore to seize Him; and no man laid his hand on Him, because His hour had not yet come.

John 8:20 These words He spoke in the treasury, as He taught in the temple; and no one seized Him, because His hour had not yet come.

John 12:23 And Jesus answered them, saying, "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.

John 13:1 Now before the Feast of the Passover, Jesus knowing that His hour had come that He would depart out of this world to the Father, having loved His own who were in the world, He loved them to the end.

Why was Mary trying to force His hand over the embarrassment of running out of wine?  Repeatedly people would do what He told them not to do, telling everyone what He told them to tell no one!  Why then did Jesus do His first miracle of turning water into wine, if His time was "not yet come?"  His mother was importunate, telling the servants to do whatever He told them to do.  She did not take "no" for an answer, and the servants were obedient to do as He said.

Remember Jesus' story of the importunate widow in Luke 18:1-5?

Luke 18:1-5
    Now He was telling them a parable to show that at all times they ought to pray and not to lose heart, [2] saying, "In a certain city there was a judge who did not fear God and did not respect man. [3] "There was a widow in that city, and she kept coming to him, saying, 'Give me legal protection from my opponent.' [4] "For a while he was unwilling; but afterward he said to himself, 'Even though I do not fear God nor respect man, [5] yet because this widow bothers me, I will give her legal protection, otherwise by continually coming she will wear me out.' "

Now, for my question.  Could the importunate widow of Luke 18 have been a story Jesus recalled from the life of His mother?  Could Mary have been the character that inspired His parable?  The Greek (and the English) text give us no such clues, and there is no indication at all that this was Mary.  Still, at the wedding in Cana of Galilee Mary was very importunate, even manipulative.

The end of verse 5 of Luke 18: "otherwise by continually coming she will wear me out," (NASB).  i[na mh. eivj te,loj evrcome,nh u`pwpia,zh| meÅ Literally, "So that in the end, she not give me a black eye."  Freburg Lexicon: "literally, in boxing beat black and blue."

Was Mary (in John 2) giving Jesus a black eye?  What if Jesus had continued to ignore Mary, and the need for more wine for the wedding feast?  Would not Jesus have been embarassed along with the bride and groom?  "Do whatever He tells you to do," and then Jesus said nothing at all to them?  "Woman, what is that to me?"

Is Mary the importunate widow of Luke 18?

I remember having a wisdom tooth pulled in my twenties.

He was an Air Force dentist, and maybe he had a quota of Novacaine he was allotted for the month.  I was in pain during the extraction process, and told the dentist as much.  "Wimp!" he said.  So the rest of the procedure was a white knuckle process, drove myself home, then on drugs laying on the couch at home for five days.

When the dentist told me to come back the next week for the next wisdom tooth extraction, I refused the appointment.  The dentist offered to issue an order (he was a Captain, I was a Staff Sergeant) to me for the appointment.  I told him that he might issue the order but I was not obligated to obey an order that was not lawful.

So I still have three of my wisdom teeth.

Then a several years later, and just a few years ago, my daughter had wisdom teeth extracted.  When she came out, she was groggy and disoriented, and part way home she threw up the blood she had swallowed during the extraction process.  A couple of days recuperation, and she was telling her side of it all.

Yesterday, Pendragon, SonnetJoy's husband, had six (that's 6) teeth pulled, including four wisdom teeth.  Gladly, SonnetJoy's dental insurance paid for most of it; it is a really good dental plan.  Pendragon was nervous about it, but mostly because SonnetJoy was making him crazy because she remembered her experience. 

They actually went to the same location, the same office, for their procedures.  The same pictures were still there on the walls!  I'm sure that some of the office people had changed, but I think the dentists were the same ones.

When we stopped to get the pain and antibiotic medications for Pendragon, the pharmacy said it would be over an hour before we could pick them up.  So, we took Pendragon home so he could rest, and not sit in a car for more than an hour.  I went back and got the meds for him, but he was hurting pretty good by the time I got back with the meds.

I was so very privileged to get to help them by driving them to and from the dental office in Memphis.  I knew where it was because SongsFriend used to work in an office kitty-corner from the dentist, and SonnetJoy had had her work done there, and I had been there for a consultation myself.  I knew the back roads to get there and avoid the construction on the overpasses and freeway.  I'm glad I got to help.

There has been some discussion in the Xanga of a friend about flirting.  Some of the reactions to the postings indicate to me some level of confusion about what is acceptable and what is not acceptable Christian behavior for singles who are both conscious of their desire to date and possibly marry, and Christian conduct as a single.

I write this as one who has been there (a long time ago), as a husband and father, as a friend and pastor.  I think, with Paul, that I have something to offer in this matter, but no direct command from the Lord.  Even though I do not have a new revelation from God, I think that we can find a lot to help us in the discussion.

The discussion began on the topic of flirting, and someone even looked up the definition of flirting from an online dictionary.  Without repeating that, I suspect that we know flirting when we experience it; either sending or receiving.  The basic question seems to be: "Is flirting okay for a Christian?"  Let give my short answer before I give a fully developed exegesis on the subject.  Short answer: Yes, it's okay for Christian singles to flirt, with caution.

Flirting may be teasing about almost anything, playful interaction, and may lead to more, either good or bad. 

I think that most of our problem with flirting may be that we remember the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:28, "but I say to you, that everyone who looks on a woman to lust for her has committed adultery with her already in his heart."  Jesus had taken His text from Deuteronomy 5:18, 21, the seventh and ninth commandments: 'You shall not commit adultery.' and 'You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, …'.  Girls, ladies, you are not off the hook on this one just because it is addressed to men looking at "a woman to lust for her."  Women can be just as guilty of this as any man, and in modern women's liberation, themes have centered around your sexual liberation.

The natural Evangelical (or Jesuit) response is to take both of the Commandments in Deuteronomy, and the instruction of Jesus, and make them the end of the matter.  Let me say that the Ten Commandments and the teachings of Jesus are our final authority, but they are not the only thing that God has to teach us in those matters.

Paul said that because of the "present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is," (1 Corinthians 7:26).  Those conditions of distress have come and gone, then repeated again, for almost two millennia, and Paul did concede that for those who wish to marry, they have not sinned.  Paul went on to say: "But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter, if she should be of full age, and if it must be so, let him do what he wishes, he does not sin; let her marry," (1 Corinthians 7:36).  See that word "daughter?"  It's in italics, meaning that the translators inserted it into the text for "clarity."  Read the verse again, but leave out the word "daughter."  If things are progressing to the point that you might "act unbecomingly," and if she is of age, marrying is not a sin.

If it is a sin to lust, and it is not a sin to marry, then how are we supposed to go from one estate to the other estate?  Is it possible to go through the process without sinning?  If both estates (single and married) are not sinful, then we can logically deduce that going from one to the other can be done without sinning.  The alternative of arranged marriages works in some cultures, but not in ours; a loveless marriage is an oxymoron.

This does not mean that everything that might be done by a dating couple is sinless as long as it results in marriage.  Taking the extreme example, premarital sex (aka. fornication) is not okay just because the definition of adultery is sex between married people, or where at least one is unmarried; the distinction is not any better if they are "consenting adults."  Neither is heavy petting okay, just because the couple is engaged or has set the wedding date (and this would be way past flirting).  Lust is involved either way, but that does not exclude appropriate behavior.  Determining what is an appropriate behavior is the trick we are looking for.

Please permit me to devolve into an analysis of the Greek for a little bit.  The root word for immorality is  pornei,a, which occurs in the Greek New Testament 25 times in 24 verses.  The NASB translates it as unchastity, fornications, immorality, fornication, or immoral.  In the KJV, the NASB "immoral" is usually fornication: sexual immorality.  It's as though the NASB translators were watering down, or broadening the definition of the meaning of the word. pornei,a is the Greek root of our word pornography. porn evil, and grafe writing (also the root word for "graphic").

So, there are legitimate dangers for the Christian single who is dating: lust and actual fornication, immorality.  Flirting is not that danger.  The danger is not guiding the relationship into either friendship or marriage.  There is nothing wrong with flirting, establishing a friendship, or marriage.  Flirting can be the initial stages of friendship or marriage, or for those already married, extreme danger (don't forget to flirt with your spouse).

The decision point comes in what is "unbecomingly."  Some have sought refuge in making a difference between "dating" and "courting."  The real difference between the two appears to me to be the protections that are built into courting, and the danger of dating is that the very term no longer means what it did forty years ago.  When my wife and I were "dating" the term meant going to the football game, or a movie, and then to the local pizzeria or hamburger stop (holding hands under the table), and then take the girl home, with a possible good night kiss on the front porch.  The word "dating" now means hooking up and hopping into bed as soon as possible, with no attachment to the other person.  Courting now involves seeking permission and approval from authority figures (parents, guardians) who keep involving themselves in the couple's activities, and protecting them from themselves and gossip by chaperoning them in public and alone, at home, in church, and at play.  This limits the opportunities for problems to arise, and allows you to get to know the person and their family, giving room for love to flourish.

1 Corinthians 13 is the famous "Love Chapter" of the Bible.  My summary of that great chapter of the Bible is this: "I love you" means "I want what is best for you no matter what it costs me."  Anything less does not measure up to the Love Chapter.

But it begins with flirting, letting the other person know that you are interested in them.  It begins with leaning out over the edge of the cliff, taking the risk of possible rejection.  It begins with the decision that the reward is greater than the risk. 

Col. 1:24
    Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church, in filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions.

What in the world is Paul saying?

Scripture tells us that works cannot save us:

When I first discovered the GoogleEarth site, I did what most folks do, and looked up my house from 3,000 miles out in space.  Then I looked up Misawa, JA; and the satelite did it's rotation thing (I had to close my eyes to forestall virtigo), and zoomed in to just over three miles high.

Sure enough the base was not the same as it was 11 years ago.  Our housing area was undergoing new construction, which meant that the old place was gone.  Oh well, it needed to be gone!  Then I zoomed to Secruity Hill and I could see that several of the projects I had initiated were done.

Blessed memories of days gone by.  Still in love with the memories we brought home with us, the Toshi Yoshida wood block prints, and more, so much more.

Watashi wa Nihongo-no wakarimasen.

I love having subscriptions to a couple of the online dictionaries.

Postprandial was the word of the day from one of them today.  Now there is a word I had never heard before!  It means "after the dinner," as in "after dinner nap!"

We, however, and a Thanksgiving postprandial tradition that does not involve a nap (though that is not excluded).  After everyone is finished eating the wonderful feast my wife prepares, I get out tumblers for everyone, pour enough grape juice to cover the bottom of the glass, and I get one of the dinner rolls.  I open my Bible to 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, and I weep as I read what Paul wrote:

I have had a part time job as a “Public Safety officer” for over a year now for ANC at the OSC Center (for those of you who know the geography where I live).  From time to time I have occasion to interact with the high school with which we share a campus.  Generally this involves locking up their school building after our students have left the building.

Today, however, I saw a high school boy rough housing with a girl his age in the parking lot.  Well, part of my job is the safety of the people on our campus, and the high school parking lot is an extension of “our campus.”  So, I walked over to the group and, in a command voice, said “Keep your hands to yourself.”  Immediately, the boy involved went behind a car to keep himself away from me, and another boy interjected about who was doing what.  I responded “Not your problem, stay out of it.”  I turned back to the first kid, and said in a command voice again “Keep your hands to your self; do you understand?”  When he did not respond, I repeated myself a third time and he finally said “Yes.”  I immediately turned to the girl and in the same command voice asked he if she understood, and she responded “Yes, sir.”  Lowering my voice, I said “Good,” and walked away.

As I was leaving I head the kids behind me say “Rent-a-cop. Don’t even have handcuffs.”  I said, “I didn’t need them did I?” and continued walking away.  I told my boss about it, then went and found the high school principle and related all this to him.

My point is not that I did anything, but rather that, for the first time, someone called me “rent-a-cop.”  Now, that is not an insult; I took it as a compliment.  My authority was recognized, and the situation before me was downgraded.  The kids were not savvy enough to come up with a more powerful insult, which was really no insult at all!  Overall, I think I feel good about this one!