"I got lost on the way to the Alzheimer's seminar."

Source: my mother, who claims she was going for informational purposes. In honor of this profound statement, Kathy has written a poem:

I got lost on the way to the Alzheimer’s Home . . .
Despite a map, I started to roam.
I know there was a reason I was headed this way,
But, for the life of me, I just can’t say!

I've posted four more of my older book reviews in the Academic Book Review section of my website. Three fall under the Old Testament subheading and one under "methodology." However, if RapidWeaver allowed me to set more than one category, all four of these could fall under the heading of "Interpretation" as well.

These four reviews were written in August 1997 in preparation for the OT Historiographic Literature seminar I took at SBTS.

Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books, 1981.
Fischer, David Hackett. Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought. New York: Harper & Row, 1970.
Long, V. Philips, "The Art of Biblical History." In Silva, Moisés, and V. Philips Long. Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation : Six Volumes in One. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan Pub. House, 1996.
Sternberg, Meir. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985.

"Your choice is simple. Join us and live in peace or pursue your present course and face obliteration. We shall be waiting for your answer. The decision rests with you."

My brother-in-law, Clark Putman (Kathy's brother) gave me a copy of the classic 1951 sci-fi movie The Day the Earth Stood Still for my birthday this year. I saw this movie years ago as a kid, probably around the time when I was six or seven years old. Clark said it was one of his favorite movies of all time and figured I'd like it.

Well, he's right. It's a great movie--not perfect, but one that holds up pretty well over time, although it's definitely a symbol of the cold-war, flying saucer movies of the fifties. It would be impossible to name all the movies that are influenced by The Day the Earth Stood Still, but what comes to mind immediately are Independence Day, numerous Star Trek episodes and movies (especially ST:TMP and STIV), Battlestar Galactica, 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Iron Giant, and its fingerprints are even in films like Army of Darkness and Good Will Hunting. The producers chose to film most of their Washington DC scenes on location in the nation's capital rather than rely on Hollywood back lot sets--an innovation in its day, but done to add realism to the movie. To say that The Day the Earth Stood Still (from here on DESS) is a landmark film is almost understatement.

The film, directed by the recently deceased Robert Wise (The Sound of Music, Star Trek: The Motion Picture), begins with a flying saucer landing on the mall in Washington DC. Out of the saucer walks a very human looking alien, Klaatu (Michael Rennie) and a towering robot named Gort (Lock Martin). Klaatu comes in peace with a gift for the US President, but is predictably injured by a trigger-happy army soldier. Klaatu recovers and when he asks for an audience with all of the world's leaders, learns the reality of Cold War politics--the Russians won't come unless the meeting takes place in Moscow, and the Americans won't meet if the Russians are in the room. To understand the nature of earth's culture better, Klaatu escapes his army captors and assumes the role of a visitor to town, Mr. Carpenter. He soon finds a room at a boarding house where he meets a WWII widow Helen Benson and her young son, Bobby. Helen Benson is played by a young and quite striking Patricia Neal, years before she developed her trademark raspy voice, presumably from smoking. The actor playing Bobby is an extremely young Billy Gray, who would later go on to play "Bud" on Father Knows Best. Classic TV fans will also spot Francis Bavier, better known nine years later as Aunt Bea on the Andy Griffith Show, as one of the residents at the boarding house.

Since Klaatu, now posing as Mr. Carpenter, has had no success with earth's politicians, he turns his attention to earth's thinkers--scientists and philosophers, represented by an Einstein-like scientist played by Sam Jaffe. But like many movies that have followed after DESS, the military will not give up in finding him and pursue him with violent means.

I'm going to break one of my review rules and tell you about part of the movie's ending, but it's core to my critique. And, hey, you've had 54 years to watch this movie, so if I'm spoiling anything for you, it's just as much your fault as mine. In shades of Star Trek: First Contact, the reason the aliens have decided to contact earth's powers is because earth has already developed atomic power for destructive use (the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) and has just begun experimenting with atomic powered rockets (according to the movie). Since earth's space exploration is inevitable, evidently there's some concern in the galactic community that earthlings will bring their violent ways to space. Space, we find out is a fairly peaceful place because years ago, the aliens submitted themselves to an inter-galactic police force represented by the giant robot, Gort. Earth is given a final ultimatum that they must either resolve their nations' violent differences and enter a new age of peace or face obliteration. Klaatu/Carpenter tells earth's leaders that he will await their answer and then the movie ends (see the quote at the beginning of the review). No doubt for 1951 audiences, the movie's ending was abrupt, and although not as surprising to today's audiences, may have been somewhat ahead of its time. There's no nice and neat resolution to this story. In effect, the decision for peace or destruction is handed over to the audience itself.

Of course, as groundbreaking as this movie was for its genre, evidently, it didn't have a huge impact on world peace as can be demonstrated by the average report on the evening news. We didn't choose peace, did we? But perhaps the method for peace offered by the aliens was not all that appealing in hindsight. The subtle implication in the movie is that the United Nations is the answer to the world's problems. If all nations will submit to the authority of the UN, they can assure that nations behave and cooperate with one another in peace.

I have a couple of problems with this solution. First, giving that much power to any organization, even a representative organization like the UN, is a dangerous idea. The founders of our own nation's government knew this too well--that humans have an innate fallen disposition--which is why they created a system of checks and balances in our governmental system. Second, I realize the UN of the 1950's is quite different from the UN of today, but would we really want to answer to this organization which has been plagued by inefficiency and scandal in the last few years? Third, I have a bit of a problem with the way the decision is proposed at the end of the move. Yes, yes, I know it's a metaphor, but there's something disturbing about being "forced" into peaceful relations that bothers me. If we can't learn to live peacefully with one another from an internal change of heart, do we really want to fool ourselves into thinking we can be forced into it? I could just imagine the fictional earth of the movie choosing to submit themselves to the robot police force out of fear and then eventually plotting how to overthrow them. This is also why I don't favor christological interpretations of this movie that suggest Mr Carpenter (get it?) is a Christ figure who has come to persuade earth to pursue a better path. Long term peace cannot be forced. There must be a change of heart for peace to take place. Hate for one's neighbor has to fade away. That's a lesson the nations of the real earth still have to learn.

Regardless, this is a great movie that I absolutely recommend. The pace of DESS will seem much slower to modern movie audiences, but its real meaning is found in its dialogue rather than action sequences. The crisp black and white look of the film mixed with the story's content and genre gives it a Twilight Zone feel. The current DVD version has been produced from a restored copy of the film. Unfortunately, it's not widescreen. However, it does contain a number interviews with surviving actors and film crew, including Robert Wise before he died. Also included is an actual movie news reel from the era, that while selected because it refers to the movie itself, is more valuable for characterizing the international political landscape of the time in which the movie was made.

Klaatu Barada Nikto!

3 Simple Rules for Posting Comments

I think it may be helpful to suggest a few simple policies for posting comments.

1. BE COURTEOUS.
If everyone will follow this simple rule, the other two will take care of themselves. You don't have to share my point of view. Debate can be fun. But politeness is a characteristic of civilized behavior. TRUE tolerance is the ability to disagree without going to war.

2. DON'T MAKE IT PERSONAL.
Name-calling and impolite labeling are unnecessary. Further, besides being discourteous, name-calling displays one's inability to adequately articulate a point of view.

3. KEEP IT CLEAN.
A wide variety of people read this blog--people of all ages. My MOM reads this blog! Please keep your comments rated G to PG.

Haloscan is set to alert me to any new comments, so I read them all. I value your opinions. Please respect these guidelines.

Thanks!

Jason Snyder has designed a really sharp website called FPUforLife (http://www.fpuforlife.com). It is so named as a combination of two of his interests: Financial Peace University (FPU) and Body for Life. Look for upcoming blogs about good health, financial responsibility, worship, church life, and technology.

Also, on his site, you'll find a really nice selection of family photos, original recordings, and worship videos that he arranged and directed. His site is really worth a look, and one that you'll probably spend a good bit of time exploring and coming back to on a regular basis.

I saw this poem referenced on an email list to which I subscribe, and it piqued my interest enough to look it up. I thought Kipling's poem profound enough to make it worth repeating here.

THE POWER OF THE DOG
by Rudyard Kipling

THERE is sorrow enough in the natural way
From men and women to fill our day;
And when we are certain of sorrow in store,
Why do we always arrange for more?
Brothers and Sisters, I bid you beware
Of giving your heart to a dog to tear.

Buy a pup and your money will buy
Love unflinching that cannot lie--
Perfect passion and worship fed
By a kick in the ribs or a pat on the head.
Nevertheless it is hardly fair
To risk your heart for a dog to tear.

When the fourteen years which Nature permits
Are closing in asthma, or tumour, or fits,
And the vet's unspoken prescription runs
To lethal chambers or loaded guns,
Then you will find--it’s your own affair--
But . . . you’ve given your heart to a dog to tear.

When the body that lived at your single will,
With its whimper of welcome, is stilled (how still!).
When the spirit that answered your every mood
Is gone--wherever it goes--for good,
You will discover how much you care,
And will give your heart to a dog to tear.

We've sorrow enough in the natural way,
When it comes to burying Christian clay.
Our loves are not given, but only lent,
At compound interest of cent per cent.
Though it is not always the case, I believe,
That the longer we’ve kept 'em, the more do we grieve.
For, when debts are payable, right or wrong,
A short-time loan is as bad as a long--
So why in--Heaven (before we are there)
Should we give our hearts to a dog to tear?

Perhaps the dilemma in Kipling's poem is best answered by Tennyson who said, "'Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all."

By the way, before any of you ask... Bessie, who is now seven, is doing fine as you can see below...

I'll admit that I'm on the email list for the Culture Jammers Network. What that means is that this time of year, I'm getting emails about "Buy Nothing Day" which to the rest of the country is known as "Black Friday," the largest spending day of the year. Last year, Americans spent $8 billion which was a 15% increase from the previous year. The problem is that over half of the purchases were spend on credit cards--primarily with money people didn't have.

I'm not choosing to join in with the Culture Jammers' suggestion to buy nothing on Friday (although I don't recommend looking for me in the malls). I don't think a spending ban would be good for our economy. However, spending money you don't have is not going to be good for the economy in the long term, and it won't be good for you at all. When people are so strapped from credit card bills, and their credit is shot, that's not good for them or the economy. And when people can't pay their bills and end up filing bankruptcy, that's certainly not good for the economy.

So, on Black Friday, be responsible. Be a good steward of what you have, and that begins by not spending what you don't have. Let "Black Friday" have new meaning by staying in the black yourself.

Related reading: "Black Friday Should Be Called Red Friday."

And tell me again why I'm not allowed to burn this to DVD?

For a lot of folks, it's already old news that you can download television content through the iTunes Music Store. I won't argue with you on that, but I didn't really have an opportunity or need to experience it until tonight. The only television show that I regularly watch every week is Lost. Since Kathy and I were traveling on Wednesday, we did not get to see the show "live," but hey, I didn't worry because I knew we could download it for $1.99.

So Thursday morning, with the smell of roasting turkey in the air, I checked a couple of times to see if Wednesday night's Lost episode "Collision" was available yet. It wasn't. I don't know exactly what time it was finally made available, but in the Central Time Zone, where we are this week, it did not show up in the iTunes Music Store until after noon, and after we were stuffed with a Thanksgiving meal.

It was easy enough to download. As soon as I clicked on the "Buy Episode" button, it was on its way to my PowerBook. However, I noticed it moving ever so slowly. Then, I remembered that I was the smart guy who had advised my mother-in-law to get the "cheaper" low-bandwidth DSL from BellSouth because I didn't figure she'd ever need anything as fast as my cable internet connection at home. The file for the episode is right at 195 MB. The DSL connection I had here only gets around 145 kbps, which is only a little bit better than the old ISDN connections. It took about two hours for the video to download. No problem; I needed a nap anyway. Too much tryptophan in my lunch...

This evening Kathy and I watched our downloaded episode of Lost. Here are my initial thoughts about the experience...

First, this kind of video-on-demand is the future. I don't know whether it will be done from a computer or a set-top box, or an integration of the two, but the day is soon coming where you'll think to yourself, "Hmm...I'd like to watch that episode of the Andy Griffith Show where Goober eats Aunt Bee's prize-winning apple pie," and you'll just download it to watch at will. Hopefully, it won't take two hours.

Second, the quality wasn't that bad. It's not high resolution, but at full screen on my 17" PowerBook, it was at least as good as my cable TV signal at home--although that's not saying much. Cable quality stinks these days. However, why wasn't it the widescreen version like the episodes from season one on the DVD set? Regardless, I'm going to assume that quality will improve as technology improves. We are in the early days of this kind of thing.

Third, there are huge advantages to watching television this way, because there are no commercials. I don't watch a whole lot of TV, but if I did, I would have to download it like this or tape it ahead of time because commercials are such a huge waste of time. But this works. Every time the screen went black for two seconds where the commercial would have been, I said to Kathy, "Commercial...look, NO commercial!"

And finally, my only REAL criticism is WHY THE HECK CAN'T I BURN THIS TO DVD? In spite of the fact that watching it was adequate on the PowerBook, I have no desire to watch an entire episode of anything on a computer. Yes, it was a novelty a few years ago when computers, especially laptops first had that ability. And I used to take DVDs on trips with me to play on my Powerbook, but when was the last time I did that? Can't remember. I really would rather watch a TV show on a TV! The inability to burn video that I have legally paid for to watch in the privacy of my own home is absolutely asinine. It's NOT illegal under any interpretation of copyright laws. If I can burn television shows I've recorded through other methods to DVD for my own personal, not-for-sale, not for public exhibition use, then it's legal for me to burn this to DVD and watch it on my television instead of my computer. If I can burn songs I've downloaded from the iTunes Music Store to CD, then what's the real difference with television shows?

Oh, I know, I know... you're supposed to download the show to your video iPod and then you can plug it into your television and watch it from there. For Job, Apple, and the movie and television industry, having a convenient, yet controlled avenue of video distribution was crucial as a justification for putting video capabilities on the iPod. But there's a much greater market out there for video on demand such as this than just for those with video iPods.

This is my only real complaint, but it is a BIG ONE. This isn't "FairPlay"; it's "Constrain-the-Customer-Because-We're-Paranoid-About-Piracy-Play." Has anyone hacked this yet? Whoever does gets my full support.

If you haven't checked out the video download abilities yet from the iTunes Music Store, overall, I recommend the experience if you don't mind limited selection and the inane limitation to only using your computer (or video iPod) for viewing. However, I am going to optimistically assume that both of these restrictions are temporary...

I came across an interesting translation change today for Job 42:11 between the original 1977 version of the New American Standard Bible (NASB) and the 1995 update.

In the original version it read,

Then all his brothers, and all his sisters, and all who had known him before, came to him, and they ate bread with him in his house; and the consoled him and comforted him for the all the evil that the LORD had brought on him. And each one gave him one piece of money, and a ring of gold.

I happened to note that in the 1995 update to the NASB, "evil" has been changed to "adversities" making the sentence "...they consoled him and comforted him for all the adversities that the LORD had brought on him" [emphasis added].

In the Hebrew, the word is ra'a meaning "evil, calamity, misfortune" (KB). The change in translation is legitimate and a reflection of the translators' theology. It's one thing to say that God caused Job misfortune; it's another thing to say he caused him evil.

However, ra'a can also be translated "chaos." Perhaps, in light of Job's misfortunes, this would be an accurate way to characterize his circumstances. Of course, some might argue that Yahweh is the God of shalom/peace, the very opposite of ra'a/chaos. Regardless, the verse says what it says in the original Hebrew.

Interestingly, the translators of the LXX (2nd cent. BC) avoided the issue altogether by not translating ra'a at all and making the passage essentially read, "...they comforted him and marveled at all the Lord had brought upon him... ."

As way of reference, here are how other translations handle ra'a in this verse:
"evil" = ESV, NRSV
"adversity" = HCSB
"trouble" = The Message, NET, NIV
"trials" = NLT

A book review is good for at least three things:

1. It alerts you to a book you did not know about previously.
2. It helps you decide whether or not you actually want to read a particular book.
3. It allows you to understand a book better.

In keeping with the third item, I am going to begin posting my old book reviews in a separate blog arranged by both the date created and searchable by category. I literally have dozens from the various book reviews I've done in classes over the years. The blogging module in RapidWeaver seems to be the perfect medium for making these available as I will post them under the original date they were written, but at the same time categorize them under a number of general headings.

A couple of weeks ago, a student in a class I was grading for at SBTS asked me what I thought was the best way to go about writing a book review. I told him what I was told by Ronald Deering over a decade ago--read other book reviews first. Reading a book review before beginning a new book--especially a more challenging book--is a good way to begin grasping content before you even read it. With that in mind, I'll let Google do its thing and hopefully some of these reviews will appear in various web searches when students, or anyone for that matter, looks for information on a book they need for a class or just for personal reading.

With each of these reviews that I post, I will include the name of the class for which they were originally written. I may at times, choose to cross-post a review written here for my main blog to the book review section as well.

At this time, I am not electing to include comments with these entries--it's not a normal blog after all, but if you feel a need to voice your thoughts about a particular review, please email me at rmansfield@mac.com.

The book reviews can be found as a submenu of Our Library (see link to the top left) or you can simply click here.

Initial reviews posted:
Blenkinsopp, Joseph. The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
Dockery, David S., and David P Gushee. The Future of Christian Higher Education. Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1999.
Fishbane, Michael A. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.
Marsden, George M. The Soul of the American University: From Protestant Establishment to Established Unbelief. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
Noth, Martin. A History of Pentateuchal Traditions. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc, 1972.
Whybray, R. N. The Making of the Pentateuch : A Methodological Study. Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1994.

But you, O Lord, are a God merciful and gracious,
Slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness and truth.
Psalm 86:15, NASB

What are you thankful for this year? Last year I asked what you were thankful for if you could only choose ONE thing. However, this year, I can't limit my thankfulness to one item. I have four that I'm naming, but I assure you there are many more. Here are my top four reasons to be thankful to our beneficent Creator:

1. I'm still most thankful that Kathy is my wife. Our little family of just the two of us and our little basset hound, Bessie Mae, is such a sanctuary of peace to me. Add to this that I'm thankful to be able to drive on a long trip to Louisiana with Kathy (we always enjoy the ride together) and spend the holiday with our family.
2. I'm thankful that I've been allowed to go back to school to finish my degree. I wouldn't recommend sitting out five years in the middle of such a pursuit like I did, but I'm extremely grateful for the opportunity to go back and finish.
3. I'm thankful for the opportunity to teach classes as an adjunct at Indiana Wesleyan University. I thoroughly enjoy working with college students.
4. Finally, I'm thankful that in the past year, we were able to combine the community where we live with the community with whom we worship. Thus, I'm thankful to be in a community of faith that is within walking distance from our home, Simpsonville Baptist Church.

Happy Thanksgiving to all of you.

And in fact, it never worked...

I've discovered that the "Contact Me" page I had on my site was not working. This had something to do with php and .Mac hosting. But regardless, if you sent me a message from that form over the past few days and wondered why I was so rude as not to reply--well, that's why. I never got it. The "Contact Me" link at the bottom of every page DOES work, though, so if you sent a message earlier through the form, would you please be so kind as to send it again, directly to my email address: RMansfield@mac.com.

With the release of Today's New International Version (TNIV), the long-awaited update to the NIV, the debate about inclusive translations begins anew. However, with all the arguments, and in some cases rhetoric, flying back and forth between the two camps, the inclusiveness of the TNIV is nothing compared to an inclusive version that was released in 1995, The New Testament and Psalms: An Inclusive Version.

For those who haven't kept up with the debate, there are some within evangelical circles who want to make certain words in the Bible inclusive. That is, they want to take certain texts that apply to all people, male and female, and use non-masculine terms. Where the NIV read in Gen 1:26, "Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image... ,'" the TNIV reads "The God said, 'Let us make human beings in our image.'" Some object to the TNIV's translation because they want to hold to masculine forms that represent all of humanity. Another often cited example is Rev 3:20. In the NIV, it reads "Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me." But notice the changes in the TNIV: "Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with them, and they with me" [emphasis added]. I don't want to get involved with the debate at this time--I'll save that for a later blog. However, if the TNIV rendering of Rev 3:20 were written by one of my students on a paper I was grading, I would mark it as an error in agreement. "Anyone" is singular, while "them" and "they" are plural. But undoubtedly, the translators are among those who want to use "they" as an acceptable inclusive pronoun instead of the often more awkward used "he or she."

With all the attention the TNIV is getting, you'd think that it was the first inclusive version of the BIble released. However, that's not so. A number of translations are already inclusive such as The New Living Translation (NLT), The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), and the Message. When the New International Readers Version (NIrV) was first released around 1996, it was inclusive; but when one of its major promoters, Focus on the Family, discovered this, they pressured the translators to change it. To my knowledge, the NIrV is the only translation I know of to be un-inclusive-ized (I think I've coined a word).

All of these inclusive versions agree in method that they only make references to humans inclusive, not references to God. The Creator is referred to as Father, and the pronoun "he" is maintained.

However, this was not the case with the release of the New Testament and Psalms: An Inclusive Version. I don't know of any standard abbreviation for this Bible, but from this point on I'll just use ILV, based on my correspondence below with one of the editors who referred to it as the Inclusive Language Version. In the ILV, even God was made gender-neutral. So, for instance, The Lord's Prayer in Matt 6:9ff begins,

Our Father-Mother in heaven,
hallowed be your name.
Your dominion come...

Not only is God referred to as "Father-Mother" instead of Father (the Greek is simply pater which is undeniably masculine in meaning as opposed to mater which would have meant "mother"), but the editors can't even use "kingdom" in the third line because "king" is masculine (as opposed to "queen") and therefore considered sexist.

The ILV was basically the NRSV text with any language that might be deemed sexist or offensive removed. Thus, it received the nickname, "The Politically Correct Bible."

Not only were gender-neutral titles used for God, but they were used even for the pre-existent Jesus and the post-crucifixion Jesus with the reasoning, "If God the 'Father' does not have a sex, then neither does the 'Son'" (p. xi). The traditional messianic designation "Son of Man" referring to Jesus is changed to "The Human One." Thus Mark 10:45 reads, "For the Human One came not to be served to but serve, and give up life as a ransom for many." Note the awkwardness of the last phrase because the editors did not want to use "his life."

Other changes include
- "Sovereign" or "Ruler" in place of "King" as a metaphor for God.
- Satan, angels, and demons are all represented gender-neutral (at least they were consistent).
- The metaphor of darkness for sin or a lack of the presence of the Gospel has been removed so as not to offend people with dark skin. So now, John 1:5 which traditionally reads: "And the light shines in the darkness and the darkness did not overcome it" is made to read "The light shines in the deepest night, and the night did not overcome it." I guess no one told them that it gets dark at night.
- In the genealogies, when known, wives' names have been added to their husbands. So, now where Matt 1:2 originally read "Abraham was the father of Isaac, and Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers," it now reads "Abraham and Sarah were the parents of Isaac, and Isaac and Rebekah the parents of Jacob, and Jacob and Leah the parents of Judah and his brothers... ." Whoops, shouldn't the last phrase have included "and sister, Dinah"? And what about Jacob's other wife Rachel, and his wives two concubines? I mean, if we adding, let's add everybody!
-References to Jesus as "Master" in Luke's Gospel are deemed too harsh, so the less offensive "Teacher" is used.
- "Slaves" are now "enslaved people."
- Since John's Gospel is often criticized as being anti-semitic (in spite of the fact that the writer was almost undisputedly Jewish himself), references to "the Jews" become "the religious authorities" in the Fourth Gospel.
- No longer is Jesus the "Son of God," but now is the "Child of God."
- "Your right hand upholds me" in Ps 63:8 becomes "Your strong hand upholds me" lest any left-handed readers be offended by this oft-used biblical metaphor.

When the ILV was released in 1995, I was working at the Baptist Bookstore (now Lifeway) on the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary campus. This was only one of two BIble translations we were not allowed to carry (we could sell it if special ordered, but we couldn't carry it). Of course, I don't blame them at all for this decision. I would have done the same thing.

As many of you know, I have approximately 80 distinct English translations of the Bible in my possession for a hobby that goes back a couple of decades. Out of all these translations, I would really only count two as Bibles that I wouldn't use for devotional purposes under any circumstances. The ILV is one of them. Many translations carry with them a certain theological perspective. The Worrell New Testament reflects the Assembly of God background of its translator. I've heard that the God's Word translation carries a bit of a Lutheran flavor. Perhaps a case could be made that the Holman Christian Standard Bible reflects its Baptist heritage. But the ILV is an example of an editorial board's theology and ideology at a dangerous extreme. Here the culture (perhaps subculture considering the ILV's very limited audience who accepted it) was evidently more of a focus than the audience of the original text. Good translation does include bridging the gap between an ancient audience and a modern audience, but translators have to be careful not to create a a different document altogether.

Usually, when a New Testament and Psalms is released, there are often plans for an entire Bible to be translated. I wondered what had become of the ILV since 1995. I noted that on Amazon.com, it seemed to be out of print, and I could no longer find it in the Oxford Press catalog. The first name on the list of editors in the back flap was Victor Roland Gold who taught at Pacific Lutheran Seminary (though I believe he has now retired as he is no longer listed among their current faculty). I wrote to Professor Gold asking him about the status of the ILV. Here is the response I got back in an email:

Mr. Mansfield: thank you for your inquiry concerning the inclusive language Bible project supported by Oxford University Press. It was the plan to publish the entire Bible in the Inclusive Language Version. However, the response to the publication of the New Testament and Psalms, an Inclusive Language Version, was so negatively received in this country and especially in England, the "home" of Oxford University Press, that it was decided to suspend the project. Since then, there has been no indication of further work on the project, so I expect that that project has been effectively discontinued. Again, thank you very much for your inquiry, and your interest in the Inclusive Language Version Bible project --- Prof. Victor Roland Gold.

Deep down, I have to admit I'm pleased about this Bible's status--out of print, and dead. Of course, I would never be in favor of censoring any book or any translation, but I believe that in this case, the market bore out the value for this publication. As an offering to the church and general public, it was rejected. Therefore it is no longer in print and the project will not be continued. I also find Prof. Gold's comment interesting that the Bible was received even more negatively in England than in the US. I would have predicted the opposite would have been true.

It's one thing to have freedom in translation to try to creatively and accurately get across the message of the biblical texts, but it's another thing entirely to completely change the meaning of the texts.

I have to wonder if the editors of the ILV cringed at all when they translated the final chapter of Revelation? Here it is in their own words:

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this book; if anyone takes away from the words of this book of prophecy, God will take away that person's share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. (Rev 22:18-19, ILV)

Over on the Christianity Today Movies website, Josh Hurst has a blog, "Drawing the Line," about those who have objected to the downplay of faith in the conversion and life of Johnny Cash as portrayed in Walk the Line.

First is Terry Mattingly's "Walking the Line with God?" in which he says the movie totally misses the role Christianity played in the life of Johnny Cash and his family.

Second is a review by Mark Joseph, "A Faith-lite Johnny Cash" in which he calls Walk the Line "a beautiful movie with a gaping hole." He also contrasts this lack of insight from this movie's producers with Rick Rubin who produced Cash's "American" albums in the nineties, saying that this rock and roll producer, in spite of the fact that he didn't share Cash's faith, did understand the role it played in the life of the Man in Black and as such, that faith is reflected in these albums.

I don't disagree with the analysis of either of these writers. My expectations of Hollywood are just low enough that I'm not ever surprised that faith is downplayed in movies. Fortunately, Christian faith is a present theme in Walk the Line, even if it is not given the place it deserves.


Above: Johnny Cash and Billy Graham, 1978, taken by Jim McGuire

Record Company Executive trying to talk Johnny Cash out of performing at Folsom Prison: "John, your fans are mainly Christians. They're not going to want you to try to lift the spirits of a bunch of murderers and rapists."

Johnny Cash: "Then they're not really Christians."

As far back as I can remember, Johnny Cash was a part of my personal culture. I don't remember a time in my life when I didn't know who he was. I still recall standing in a circle with classmates and my teacher when I was in kindergarten. She was letting us suggest songs and then we were singing them together. One little boy spoke up and said, "Oh, I know a song by Johnny Cash!" We all stared at him waiting. After a few seconds of racking his brain, he said, "It's something about a train."

In the last decade or so, I "rediscovered" Johnny Cash and have a number of his albums, including the famous "Live at Folsom Prison." Johnny Cash is like Billy Graham. Cash doesn't have a perfect voice, and Graham is not the most eloquent preacher you'll ever hear. Yet, both are extremely powerful when they use the abilities God gave them. Johnny Cash has the unique ability to connect to all kinds of people from all different walks of life. Whether listening to the live recording from Folsom Prison (1968) or his last album, "American IV: The Man Comes Around" (2002), Cash has the power to move you with his sometimes raspy, sometimes off-key voice. He sings about life. He sings about mistakes. He sings about faith and redemption.

Redemption is the key theme in Walk the Line. The movie begins with a significant event from Cash's boyhood, and then traces his career from the early fifties through the time of the Folsom Prison concert in 1968. As Cash begins his career, he travels and interacts with a number of legendary performers such as Elvis Presley, Jerry Lee Lewis, Carl Perkins, and Waylon Jennings (who, incidentally, is played by Jenning's own son, Shooter Jennings). It's through these early tours that Cash meets June Carter, whose career he has followed since they were both children. Throughout the movie, Johnny Cash wrestles with the demons from his past. He carries misplaced guilt from the significant childhood experience mentioned above. He yearns for his father's approval, and never seems to receive it regardless of his level of commercial success. In turn he finds difficulty becoming a responsible husband and father himself.

As I said, this movie is a redemption story, and as such, at times it was hard for me to watch. Why? Well, if the timeline in the movie is fairly accurate, Cash began to clean up his life in the late sixties. I was born in 1967, and I never had the image of Johnny Cash as the carouser who was arrested for drug possession. For me Johnny Cash has always been this great legendary performer who sang about real life and occasionally performed at Billy Graham crusades. In order for redemption to take place in the movie, we have to witness Cash's self-destructive downward spiral into alcohol and drug abuse, infidelity, and a failed marriage. The second act of Walk the Line is certainly not rip-roaring fun for the audience because most of us admired the man and feel a connection to him. Yet, it's significant that before he died, Cash was involved in this project from the beginning--down to his personal selection of Joaquin Phoenix to portray him in the movie. As unflattering as some of the events in his life were, I think that if he were alive today, Johnny Cash would approve of the final product. There were no skeletons in his closet because everything was out in the open. He was not perfect man, and he never attempted to portray himself that way. Perhaps that's why his music is so real and why we enjoy it so much.

As I mentioned, Joaquin Phoenix was personally selected for the role by Johnny Cash himself, reportedly after Cash saw Phoenix's performance in Gladiator. Although I don't know if I ever fully thought that I was seeing Johnny Cash instead of Phoenix in his portrayal, the latter is to be commended for his performance. Not only does he sing the Cash songs himself instead of relying on dubbed tracks, he even learned how to play guitar for this part. In fact, his best times of portrayal are when he performs. He has the Cash stare down, the tilt of the head back before launching into a song. He even holds his guitar in Cash's trademark style that looked more like he was firing a shotgun than playing a musical instrument.

Reese Witherspoon was an excellent choice to play June Carter at the very least because her southern drawl is natural. Witherspoon, like Phoenix performs her own songs (her voice is actually pretty good), and also learned how to play the zither for the role. Witherspoon also had the challenge of playing a more complex character. Unlike Johnny Cash, who is always essentially Johnny Cash, June Carter had a stage presence that was somewhat distinct from her offstage personality. Witherspoon pulls this off, and her portrayal of Carter is quite believable.

Incidentally, I read a couple of weeks ago that Kathy Cash, Johnny's daughter from his marriage with his first wife, was displeased with the movie because she "said the film unfairly shows her mother, Vivian Liberto Distin, Johnny Cash's first wife, as a shrew." Granted, it's not my mother being being portrayed in the film, but Cash's first wife did not come across to me like that at all. If anything she is portrayed as a victim of Cash's earlier indiscretions.

With limited budget and my return to the life of a student, this was the first movie we'd seen in a few months, but one that I eagerly anticipated. My favorite parts were the performances, and I felt this was where Phoenix really shined. If you are considering seeing this movie with children, take the PG-13 rating seriously. Drug and alcohol abuse and marital infidelity are portrayed very realistically. And of course, like any movie portraying this era in American history, everyone smokes cigarettes.

But after you see Walk the Line, go listen to some authentic Johnny Cash recordings. Odds are, after seeing his real-life story, you will hear the words in his ballads in a different light and with new appreciation.

For the handful out there who might be interested, I have posted the tutorial, "How to convert iBlog blogs to RapidWeaver blogs in 4 Essential Steps" in the RapidWeaver FAQ's & Tutorials forum.

And why I've dumped Word for Mellel...

First, my source for this news is Rick Schaut himself (whom I respect very much), a software design engineer in Microsoft's Mac Business Unit (MacBU). On October 28, I emailed him asking if right-to-left (RTL from this point on) text was finally going to be available for Mac Word version 12, presumably to be released sometime in 2006. This was his reply:

At present, it doesn't look as though right-to-left text rendering will be in the next release of Mac Office. The reasons are somewhat complicated to explain, but they stem from differences between Windows and the Macintosh with respect to low-level APIs that provide context-based glyph substitution and the ability to get glyph-based (as opposed to character-based) measurements. At present, the only way we can do RTL in Mac Word would break the line-layout compatibility between Mac Word and Win Word.

I'm really ticked about this. In spite of the fact that Word for the Mac has been around longer, the Windows version of Word already has this ability in its current version. As much as I hate to admit it, I think I can honestly say for the first time WinWord has a leg up on MacWord. There I said it. Let lightning strike where it may.

For me this means that using Mac Word for writing a dissertation in the field of biblical studies is out of the question. I'll explain why in a minute. But it's not just folks in biblical academia who are left out in the cold. Anyone needing to compose text from right to left--whether it's modern Hebrew or even Arabic--can't use Mac Word. Nor can anyone use it who works with any Ancient Near Eastern language, most all of which are RTL. Word for Windows has had this ability since the release of Office 2003.

Let me give you a taste of the problem. First, of all, if you want to compose text in Hebrew, you can forget it because Hebrew is a RTL language and text that flows in this direction is not supported by Mac Word. Further, Unicode text pasted into a Word document does not display Hebrew correctly either. There are a number of advantages to using Unicode fonts. Read the Accordance Unicode page for more information or Joe Weak's Unicode introduction for biblical scholars. However, the greatest advantage to me is that Unicode fonts are generally cross platform. I should be able to give a document containing Greek or Hebrew text to a person using a Mac or Windows without worrying whether or not he or she has the same Greek and Hebrew fonts which has always been an issue in the past.

But I can't use Mac Word for any of this. The problem is that text that should look like this:



comes out looking like this when I paste it into MS Word 2004 for the Mac:


It's utterly unusable. Therefore, I've had to find an alternative, which is Mellel. Overall, I like Mellel, especially v. 2. But I really have sour grapes about being forced to switch software after using Word, first in Windows and then on the Mac, for the last fourteen years.

I'm not going to erase Word from my Mac. Granted, I've got thousands of Word documents that I've created over the years. Even though there is a Word import feature in Mellel, it's not always 100%, especially with the more complex documents. But what it does mean is that new documents get created in Mellel from now on.

The good news is that Mellel is extremely solid and built from the ground up to be a word processor for academic use. It's ability to handle unicode fonts, switch on the fly to RTL text direction, integration with bibliographic software like Bookends, extremely powerful outlining and styles features, and, of course, long document support make it a scholar's dream, regardless of the exact field. See the full feature list for yourself.

If you haven't tried Mellel yet, I encourage you to download the demo. Regardless of your requirements in a word processor, you may find that Mellel actually suits most of your needs best. Plus, the developers at RedleX, the makers of Mellel, are extremely accessible through their forums, and open to new feature suggestions. In fact, they ask for them. That's better than anything I've ever received from the other guys...



Above: Mellel 2.01 in all it's glory.

Way back in September, 2002, my friend David Mitchell and I took a spur of the moment day trip to Metropolis, Illinois (home of Superman, you know). We took a ton of pictures that day, and I later sorted through them and created a fun little story. Originally, the images were in a .Mac photo template so all captions were below them. However, now that I have access to Comic Life from Plasq, I can finally present it in it's most appropriate format. You can find it in the photos section or simply click the page image on the left.

The title, "Quest for Peace" is a takeoff from Superman IV: The Quest for Peace.

By the way, if you haven't taken a look at Comic Life yet, I highly recommend that you check out the fun things you can do to photos with it. There is also a user gallery on the Plasq site.

People are still passionate;
they are passionate about trivia.

Heard on today's Dennis Prager radio show in the context of the loss of soul in our culture.

Today saw the release of Mellel 2.0, the best academic word processor I've found for Mac OS X. What was already a solid application is made more mainstream with the features added in this release including

• Hyphenation
• Columns and section styles
• Improved RTF support
• Keep with next and Keep options (think widow and orphan controls on steroids)
• Space at top of page/column
• Table frames line type
• Document setup: Added inside/outside margins and background color
• Page style colour: Added colour options to page styles
• Navigating: Page up and Page Down keyboard navigation
• Dictionary access (Tiger only)
• View options: Several additions
• Find special codes: Some additions
• Moving tabs: You can now move the end margin beyond tabs.
• Restart Note options: Now with every page range or section too.

Visit the Mellel site to get the full list of improvements and new features.

There are actually quite a few more improvements than this, but these were the biggies. If you're not familiar with Mellel, you probably are thinking, "Big deal. Word's done all that for years." Yes, you're right, but what you don't know is what Mellel was already capable of including the best handling I've seen of unicode fonts on the Mac, and especially for me, Greek and Hebrew typefaces. Mellel's ability to use right to left languages such as Hebrew are far superior to most word processors, especially on the Mac platform. Further, Mellel integrates well with bibliographic/citation software such as Bookends or Sente which is crucial for academic writing.

With the more mainstream features added in the 2.0 release, Mellel is now set to be the best word processor on the Mac not just for academic writing but for any standard user. There is a bit of a learning curve for using Mellel because it was built from the ground up as a word processor that was not simply trying to be a less expensive alternative to Microsoft Word. Therefore, it doesn't do everything like MS Word does. Many of the "standard" word processing procedures have been rethought. However, the downloadable user manual is very straightforward, and the average user can be up and running in a short while.

Although I was part of the beta test for version 2.0, I wasn't able to contribute too much because it hit in the middle of my preparing for comps. But I've been using the beta for the past three weeks for everyday use and I found it to be incredibly stable. With the final release of the product, it should be even more solid now. For any of my fellow classmates at SBTS, I have also contributed a term paper template that adheres to the SBTS/Turabian style guide. It is available in the downloads section at the Mellel site.

Although the price for Mellel has gone up with version 2.0, it is still a bargain at $49.99 regular price and $34.99 academic price. Users of previous versions (such as myself) were able to upgrade for free.

I'm working on a post for later this week that gives more detail as to why I've dropped MS Word after 13 years and switched to Mellel for serious writing. Keep watching this space.