I often find it helpful to have a Bible Atlas near me when I’m reading through large chunks of the Bible. I have been unable to find a real good online version, but here is a pretty decent offering from the Access Foundation. It is listed on Scribd as licensed under the Creative Commons non-Commercial Attribution license.
I love all my gadgets and widgets, my beeps and bops and all the many tools I use to make sure I’m always connected all the time. But there is a danger—all these technological tools tend to feed my idolatry. From Mark Driscoll:
As I drifted off to sleep, it dawned on me that I had not had one minute of silence during my entire day. It was possible, I realized, that I could live the rest of my life without ever again experiencing silence.
In that moment, God deeply convicted me that I was addicted to the false trinity of our day, the gods known as Noise, Hurry, and Crowds. I remembered the words of missionary martyr Jim Elliot, who said, “I think the devil has made it his business to monopolize on three elements: noise, hurry, crowds . . . Satan is quite aware of the power of silence.”
The Bible also describes multiple benefits of purposeful silence, including:
- hearing from God (1 Kings 19:11–13)
- waiting patiently for the Lord to act (Lamentations 3:25–28)
- worshiping God (Habakkuk 2:20)
- knowing God better (Psalm 46:10)
- praying effectively (Luke 5:16)
Since God convicted me of my addiction to noise, I have sought to conform my life more to the pattern of Jesus’, which has proven quite helpful. I try to spend at least five minutes an hour in silence, at least thirty minutes in uninterrupted silence each day, and a full day in silence once a month. During those times I find myself going for silent prayer walks to listen to God, writing in my journal, and sometimes doing nothing at all, which for me has become an act of faith that God is at work even when I am not.
Read the whole thing. Of course Mark is not talking about just technology, but all the many ways in which we avoid the silences that surround us. But for me, technology is my number-one crutch.
Vern Poythress makes some similar remarks, though with a slightly different focus. From a secular perspective, Peter Sagal has some thoughts on the subject.
Take a tour of ancient Rome, courtesy of Google. Read a description of the project here.
In the course of preparing material for New Testament Introduction I needed to track down a quote from Papias (I am making a concerted effort to check all primary sources in so far as I am able). The result: I am increasingly impressed by the Internet Archive. Not only did they actually have Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History availabled for download, they also had it in multiple formats. And the PDF scans are searchable, which means that I could search for, highlight, and copy/paste the required text straight into my slides. As a cherry on top: the search results are tagged with faux post-it-notes, just like in real life! Powerful stuff.
Here is Darrell Bock on Gesine Robinson on the recently-hyped Gospel of Judas.
I have come across a wealth of interesting quotes as I prepare for New Testament Introduction class next term. Here’s one on the importance of Marcion (remember Marcion, the 2nd century semi-gnostic theologian who created his own canon?) in the development of the church’s canon consciousness:
The theological and methodological deficiencies of [Marcion's] canon should not…prevent us from appreciating the fundamental importance of the attempt. Marcion’s bible tabled once for all the question of a new canon, that is, the question of the ‘authentic’ witnesses to the original gospel, which were to provide the standard of all later tradition and the norm for the preaching of the Church. The Church as she was then situatied could not ignore this question if she wished to hold her own. But there was still a long way to go, through crises and controversies of many different kinds, before an answer was found. That answer stands today as our New Testament; but at the outset of the conflict such a thing did not exist. (Campenhausen, Hans. The Formation of the Christian Bible. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972. p165).
It’s a powerful reminder of God’s gracious providence in history, especially in times of trial and opposition. A man who fought against God’s gospel with incredible passion and consistency ultimately spurred the Church on to recognize what we know today as the New Testament.
Van Til reminds us that our life as creatures is full of mystery, both regarding God and the world he has created. I found this article a small reminder that it’s OK to say “I don’t know.”
Here is an excerpt. I’m not sure whether the scientist quoted is being intentionally ironic or is blinded by his own arrogance.
Peter G. Wolynes, a professor of chemistry at the University of California, San Diego, thinks he essentially solved the glass problem two decades ago based on ideas of what glass would look like if cooled infinitely slowly. “I think we have a very good constructive theory of that these days,” Dr. Wolynes said. “Many people tell me this is very contentious. I disagree violently with them.”
Little mysteries, like our fundamental ignorance concerning the nature of glass, are a reminder that our world is designed by an incomprehensible God. We can confidently proclaim “I don’t know” because he alone understands all things perfectly, and that perfect knowledge grounds and secures our imperfect knowledge. So here is a quote from Van Til:
It is exceedingly dangerous to confuse the orthodox concept of the incomprehensibility of God with the ultimate mysteriousness of the universe as held by modern thought. Modern thought in general, and modern logic in particular, holds . . . that God is, at most, an aspect of Reality as a whole. Hence, God is himself surrounded by darkness or mystery, just as man is surrounded by darkness or mystery. In other words, modern thought believes in an ultimate irrationalism, while Christianity believes in an ultimate rationality. It is difficult to think of two types of thought that are more radically opposed to one another. It is the most fundamental antithesis conceivable in the field of knowledge. . . . The very foundation of all Christian theology is removed if the concept of the ultimate rationality of God be given up.(Introduction to Systematic Theology: Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1995, p. 13).
