111 thoughts on “Our Daily Thread 9-17-16

  1. Oooh! The colors in the header are awesome. That is a gorgeous place.

    Since Art’s surgery moved to Tues., I decided for a Monday removal of the whole tree if it does not rain.

    I found out my friend, Karen, will have serious heart surgery scheduled about a week after Art’s surgery. She will be in the hospital almost a week like Art. I may have mentioned before how much our lives seem to parallel their lives, not in everything, but in big and many little things. This is just another one of those things, for the record.

    Liked by 3 people

  2. Taken with an Iphone out the window of Dungeness Lighthouse, looking over a lagoon toward the Olympic Mountains. The Straits of Juan de Fuca are in the top right corner.

    You can read about the hike on my website right now, and on Tuesday I’ll talk about the lighthouse: http://www.michelleule.com/2016/09/16/hiking-dungeness-spit/

    I just took the picture, I was as surprised as you were by the colors and how it looks like a painting. Shocked, in fact.

    From the top of the lighthouse, the teenage docent asked us what we thought that orange area was. “Heloport,” I said.

    He was surprised I knew the answer, but I’m older than he is! 🙂

    Taken day two of the five days my husband wisely took me away from screens, books, life and craziness. He took the phone away from me the next day so I couldn’t even look at that screen.


    Especially at 5:20 in the morning after the third or fourth in a row awful night of not sleeping. I have four hours to work on Biddy–I’m revising and editing again as I pull out all the citations. This is wonderful, tedious, hard work leaving me brain dead and I’m only a third of the way through. I wanted to be finished by tonight.

    We’ll see what God does. Three year old birthday breakfast party later this morning, but otherwise, you’ll find me here chained to the desk!

    Liked by 6 people

  3. That photo is on the Strait of Juan de Fuca, between Canada and Washington. Just a minute let me check my map.
    Dungeness Spit. It is a five mile walk to that point.
    Michelle posted on Facebook


  4. I love it when I can see photos of places I have read about. I think Deebie Macomber has written about the area. If not her then some other author. I also think this season of Deadliest Catch is there. Mr P has to have the TV on if he is awake and I don’t pay a whole lot of attention.


  5. Oh, Kim, I would have a hard time with that. On his days off, Hubby likes to channel surf for a while, often landing on something that catches his attention for a bit. It annoys me, especially since I am usually trying to concentrate on what I am reading (online or off), but at least he doesn’t do that for a long period of time. I prefer to have music on, or nothing at all.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Going back to what Mumsee brought up yesterday (the interesting theological discussions we used to have) – Unless AJ really wants to, I don’t think we need a separate thread for that. We can introduce topics here on the daily thread, like we do with various Questions of the Day.

    I don’t know if this fits, but I’ve been reading some on the recent controversy over the recent ESV tweaks, especially on Genesis 3:16. Anyone else reading about it? I’ll share three articles that have come to my attention, although I haven’t finished reading all of them.

    The first (sharing them separately to avoid going into the spam filter). . .



  7. I’ll let you ladies argue over Genesis 3:16. I like John 3:16 better.
    One comment before I go. It isn’t a law. It’s generally the way it works, in every society.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. I haven’t heard of that controversy, Karen, I will check out those links. I believe we still use NKJV in our church (for readings, etc.), but many of us have the ESV (which for me replaced my old NASB before they messed with that in a new-new American Standard version 🙂 )

    Many still prefer the New King James, but ESV was very well received by those interested in the more literal translations.

    Great photo, that looks like a wonderful spot on earth.

    Waiting for real estate pal to get here to look at my bathroom again, I keep talking to him about this and that so he said he needs to come over to get another first-hand look (last time he was in there was when roofers were replacing the leaky tub drain). He also may be able to tell more definitively if it’s a cast iron or more flimsy tub underneath the liner by kicking and knocking on it a bit.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Lovely, lovely photo! I’ll have to show my husband–he’ll want to go there to paint, and he’ll take me along. 🙂

    My husband doesn’t do lengthy screen time–though this week he is sick, and he is. My best friend in Nashville had her husband turn the TV on as soon as he got home, and I’d once had a roommate who did that and I knew I could not live with it. So I asked him early about screen time and if he’d told me even as much as two hours a day, that would have been it. That and porn were my deal-killer questions. (I’d already determined he wad 100% committed to marriage, no chance of divorce, or that would be included as a deal killer, too. But we hadn’t gotten as far as deal making when I assured myself of that one. But I guess I had three deal-killer questions.) I grew up without TV and was determined to raise my children without it–if I’d married early enough to have children, that would have been part of the conversation, even though it likely would have lost me a chance to marry. I’m actually a little sad that the girls did grow up with TV and thus that their children probably will too.


  10. Interesting passage from II Maccabees 2.
    There is has always been consideration of what happened to the Ark of the Covenant that Israel kept in the Holy Place. It seems to have disappeared. It is not mentioned in the NT. So? It there is a mystery concerning what happened toit.
    Consider this. II Maccabees has this passage in Chapter 2. It seems that no one has gone to Mount Nebo to search for it. (Deut. 24;1)

    But Jeremiah said, it is unknown “until God gathers his people again and shows his mercy.” The writing is plain, but I don’t know what all of it means. This is not a trivial thing.

    ] One finds in the records that Jeremiah the prophet ordered those who were being deported to take some of the fire, as has been told,
    [2] and that the prophet after giving them the law instructed those who were being deported not to forget the commandments of the Lord, nor to be led astray in their thoughts upon seeing the gold and silver statues and their adornment.
    [3] And with other similar words he exhorted them that the law should not depart from their hearts.
    [4]It was also in the writing that the prophet, having received an oracle, ordered that the tent and the ark should follow with him, and that he went out to the mountain where Moses had gone up and had seen the inheritance of God.

    [5] And Jeremiah came and found a cave, and he brought there the tent and the ark and the altar of incense, and he sealed up the entrance.
    [6] Some of those who followed him came up to mark the way, but could not find it.
    [7] When Jeremiah learned of it, he rebuked them and declared: “The place shall be unknown until God gathers his people together again and shows his mercy.
    [8] And then the Lord will disclose these things, and the glory of the Lord and the cloud will appear, as they were shown in the case of Moses, and as Solomon asked that the place should be specially consecrated.”


  11. All of us here were born in the age of electronic media, first radio then TV and now — with much more of an impact, frankly — the Internet. It’s all become a pervasive force in the culture and on all of us as individuals (for both good and ill). So rules regarding its use are good — I rarely have the TV on during the day if I’m home (unless I’m sick and am otherwise “stuck” with little energy to do much else than sleep and watch; it used to be an internal “house” rule for me, but now it’s more of a habit — although after 9/11 I now do check the news — online — each morning and am on the computer before I go to work).

    Quaint when you think we all used to get up, pick the newspaper off the front porch and read that. Yesterday’s news, of course, but …

    I still rely heavily on major news sources, including newspapers, in their online formats (and we have far more readers now than we ever have for our paper, just not those print advertising dollars that used to keep us afloat).

    We’ve seen a lot of changes in media in our day — which I think will be historically viewed as a real game changer in terms of our nation, the world and our culture.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Good Morning…I have read some on the controversy concerning the ESV changes…I do read from the old version of the NIV….in church the ESV is used. I just find myself not wanting to bicker over it all…I read the scripture all the while asking the Lord to reveal His truth and direction in my life through it…He has always been faithful to do so….
    Concerning TV…I was grew up in the 50’s and 60’s….we were still the pioneering generation of “technology”….and my Dad was a tv/radio repairman as a second job/hobby….Red’s TV Service…..we had lots of TV’s and radios! I still prefer music over tv, but I do enjoy tv if there is something on worth watching…which isn’t too often. Old shows like Andy Griffith, Father Knows Best, Hazel, Dick Van Dyke…you get the gist….that is what I find entertaining. Contemporary shows like Monk, Columbo, which are no longer airing, were entertaining as well. PBS has This Old House, Antique Road Show, Doc Martin…for occasional watching.


  13. For a while I didn’t have cable and had videos for BG to watch. I could live without TV for the most part. During the day when I am working I cannot tolerate noise- even radio. It is too distracting and rattles my nerves. I usually close the door to my office. I am quite happy to read at night

    Liked by 2 people

  14. The Emmy awards are this weekend.

    Oops. Wrong crowd. 🙂

    So have a few more answers on the bathroom work, got the size of window I likely need — I guess I can start ordering the items I’ve settled on, but I’m still holding off for some reason. Roofers will probably do the demo work, tile guy maybe is lined up. It’ll be a real upheaval for some time, i’m afraid, and that’s my only shower (I have a toilet and sink in the spare bedroom at least).

    Not sure how to handle animal provisions during all of this (the cat can and will fend for herself, the dogs … ) — and I may have to be working through it all, though i can probably arrange to work from home here and there if needed. Among the many advantages of the computer age, I have to say.


  15. I’ve partially read the Genesis ESV links here — my ESV renders 3:16 as: Your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you. (footnote says “or against” as one alternate rendering)

    So is this a newer ESV translation being discussed in the links? I’ll have to read them more closely (and I didn’t think there was a revised ESV yet, it’s still a fairly new translation, considering).

    I still take my old New American Standard to church typically (as it’s the one Bible I’ve allowed myself to mark up over the years).


  16. Re the ESV: I think the reason for the announcement of a “final” version is that minor changes here and there get annoying. My husband and I have what looks like the exact same Bible (except that his is black and mine is maroon) . . . but mine was bought several years later than his. (Not sure how much later, since he already had his when we married, and I asked him to buy me one a year or two after we married.) This is a random, made-up example, but our Sunday school teacher will read: “Then Joshua led the people of Israel into their camp” and mine will say “encampment” and so I’ll look at my husband’s Bible and sure enough it will say “camp,” so I know the teacher didn’t just say the wrong word. Or he’ll read “And on the next day, the people ascended the mountain” and mine will say “The people ascended the mountain the next day.” Neither of those changes the meaning, so you’re left scratching your head saying “Why continue to do little tweaks once the version has been released?” Other times it will be something like “The people had bread to eat” and one version says “much bread,” and you think OK, they must have determined that the word meant that, but it’s still a fairly minor change.

    It means that when I’m editing a book that uses ESV, I need to use the Bible Gateway version (and assume it is up to date) and not mine (which may not be). On that grounds, I understand them saying, “This is the final version” and frankly, I wish they had gotten to that point before releasing it.

    When I say my husband and I have Bibles that look identical, there is one notable change: His has page numbers on the right edge of each page and mine has page numbers in the middle, or vice versa, but otherwise, if we’re on page 1072 in his, on page 1072 in mine, the text will start with the exact same word in the verse, with the same endnotes, drawings, etc. So they obviously have taken care to keep the Bibles the same, in spite of rearranging where they put the page numbers, because otherwise text would end up different pages sometimes with those changes. I have no idea what percentage of words have been changed–sometimes when the teacher reads something different than our texts, both our Bibles match and I suspect he just misread as we all do at times–but I know there have been ongoing changes, and that is a bit of a nuisance for the reader.

    As to the verse, through the years I’ve heard a lot of discussion about what it means, but in areas like that I always figure if the language experts disagree, I have no chance of adding anything to the conversation since I have never studied the original languages at all.


  17. Perhaps that is what churches need to do–offer classes in Greek so that we can all learn to read the original for ourselves and understand from there instead of all these different interpretations. I like the “desire for” wording. I like it because in my mind it also carries sexual connotations. Women have all sorts of different desires. We also like to get our way (as evidenced by my above post. I suggest something to DJ and think I have convinced her and her MALE real estate friend shows up and contradicts me).

    I really miss the days when we all read the King James Version and were blissfully unaware of all the nuances in the language. I have the New Oxford Annotated that I used a long time ago to teach a Bible study. I did not like the fact that they referred to Mary the mother of Jesus as a Maiden instead of a Virgin. Virgin is a statement of her never having had sex, therefore the Immaculate Conception. A maiden is simply an unmarried woman and a lot of interpretation is left as to whether or not she had had sex with a man.

    Liked by 2 people

  18. Kim, not the immaculate conception (that’s the Catholic doctrine that Mary was born without sin . . . which completely undercuts the need for a virgin birth, if a person could simply be born sinless!) but the virgin birth, or more relevantly the virgin conception.

    From the third link, this is the first point and the one he agrees with: “The subordination/submission of woman and the supremacy/leadership of man are a creation ordinance, God’s ideal from the beginning (Gen. 1-2) and part of the fall consisted in the violation of this ordinance when Eve sought to get out from under Adam’s supremacy/leadership and Adam failed to restrain her (Gen 3). God describes in 3:16 the results of sin in the continued distortion of God’s original design for ontological hierarchy or functional leadership/submission between the sexes–with the man’s exploitive subjugation of woman and/or woman’s desire to control the man (or her “diseased” desire to submit to his exploitations )”

    The problem with this one quite simply is that it assigns fault to Eve, when Scripture does not. She was not wiggling out from under Adam’s authority. Whether he was elsewhere or whether he was present and refused to step in is unclear, but if she had been seeking to get out from under his God-given leadership, that would have been the first sin. Scripture is clear that Eve ate because she was deceived, Adam because he chose to rebel, and it labels Adam’s as the cause of the Fall. (Does that mean Eve didn’t sin in eating? I don’t know.)

    Liked by 2 people

  19. Which apple do I bite?

    The horizontal or vertical bathroom tilt-turn window?

    48 or 60-inch bead board panels?

    Chrome or bronze (or matte nickel, just to confuse things even more)?

    So many apples


  20. Two of the things I found interesting in the controversy. . .

    . . . that some believe Genesis 3:16 is a description of what is likely to happen between the sexes as a result of The Fall, while others see it as God’s will or curse (that He wills for that strife to occur). Some also believe that this verse refers to men & women in general, not merely husbands & wives.

    . . . that some see it as a positive thing (the woman will desire her husband, & he will rule over her benevolently), while others see it as a negative thing (that the woman will want to dominate her husband, but he will rule over her in a tyrannical sense).

    ISTM that history (& what we see with our own eyes) shows us that husbands & wives being at odds, with men abusing their authority over their wives, happens very often, but is not a “law” of God.


  21. For those who may not look at the links, here is the verse as it was in the older ESV, & the new version which will be coming out. . .

    Older version: “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”

    New version: “Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.”


  22. Kiz,

    My first introduction to this totally different meanings was 1 Cor 11:16 (NASB) on head coverings. The section ends with “But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.” And a friend pointed out that the KJV recorded that as (we have no such practice.” I was shocked but not undone. With as many different translations (interpretations) as we have, there is bound to be some disagreement. It definitely can cause confusion and division.

    My interpretation of the Genesis section is that women will tend to desire to rule their husbands, in subtle and not so subtle ways. Going to Genesis 4: 7 gives a similar use of desire.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. Mumsee – Genesis 4:7 has also been mentioned in the articles about the controversy, as the new ESV version will use “contrary to” in that verse, too.

    I suspect that Genesis 3:16 will be up for debate until Jesus comes back & sets us straight.


  24. Mumsee, I bought a little book called “The Apocrypha” but I no longer have it because I didn’t have room when I moved and the print shrunk.
    Not all the books in “The Apocrypha” are appropriate for scripture. But “The Prayer of Manassas” seems real and logical. The Macabees are historical events during the inter testamental period. what some, erroneously in my opinion, call “The silent years”. I read about those years in Josephus, which I no longer have, but it’s well worth reading.
    God was active in those years. it is well to read about Antichous Epiphanes, “The illustrious”. He was a bad guy.
    He is the reason Jews have Hanukah.
    I didn’t answer your question, did I.??
    I bought my versions for the Kindle from Amazon for $0.99.

    Liked by 2 people

  25. It’s been another overdo-It Saturday. I got Art to decide on anew couch today from Sam’s around nine this morning. Then I checked to see if my brother could help me get it in the old truck and He said he would. The guys at Sam’s helped him load it on the truck. When we got it to my house, my brother did not think he and I could manage to get it off the truck and into the house. Well, I figured out what we needed to do, and it worked. I still have to attach the back pieces. Again, I am worn out. But our old raggedy couch is on the street for pick up. I do not think even junk dealers will want it! I believe it is over thirty years old. It looks worse than the Velveteen Rabbit.

    Liked by 3 people

  26. Thank you Cheryl for catching my mistake. I did know that. I had a really good reason for the mistake…I was receiving two offers on my listing and was emailing and texting. We have a contract!!!!!
    Merry Christmas!

    Liked by 6 people

  27. Enjoying the discussion today. I want to purchase a large print Bible as I find using my phone or iPad is just not the same as holding a book and flipping back and forth to other references. I have always used the NIV, but don’t really want to get the newer version as I don’t like the changes I’ve seen (as subtle as they have been). I don’t like KJV except for memorizing so I’m not sure what version to get…

    Liked by 2 people

  28. Kare, I used the NKJV for years. It retains much of the beauty of the KJV but with more updated language and I think some general corrections of language. The NASB is great, too, and the HCSB. I’m using the ESV, but admit I wouldn’t buy one right now as I want to see how all of this plays out.

    Liked by 2 people

  29. I picked up paint chips (too many, sorry Kim), visited a high-end window place (only because it was right across the street from the paint store) and got the major hard-sell. Took their brochures and that’s all. (Though their new version of fake windows — not vinyl, but something using part wood, looked a lot more appealing to me than the vinyl, though I’m sure it’s very expensive).

    Then I went to a tile place and immediately honed in on probably the most expensive subway tiles in the store. I have very good taste. Anyway, luckily the kind I need for a more authentic 1920s bathroom look are the cheap glossy kind. 🙂 The floor tile pattern I like is being discontinued so they didn’t have any of that, but said they always sell their extra when that happens to Home Depot which is why I’ve found in on their site.

    Learning, learning, learning.

    Oh, and Sherwin Williams has a consultation service at your home which I intend to use when it’s time to paint the exterior. I think it’s worth it just for some other ideas that maybe I haven’t though of before. Looking at the historic palettes of course.

    Liked by 3 people

  30. Wow! That window looks like something we saw at the High Museum of Art here in downtown Atlanta on Peachree St. I think it was Winslow Homer works of art. I will have to look it up to be sure. That is a fantastic photo! Not Norman Rockwell, LOL! No people in it, and his illustrations were all about people.

    Liked by 2 people

  31. Kevin, Art’s surgery is a valve repair rather than replacement. It will be done robotically, as I understand, with maybe five incisions on one side and something in the upper area of His chest. It is not the cut the chest open type so it should heal more quickly. If I understood what the surgeon said, because of the strain on the heart from the A Fib, I think the heart muscle may have enlarged a bit so the valves which act similar to parachutes in opening and closing should meet together at one point in the cycle and seal. But in Art’s case, the seal is not complete so that excess blood can backflow and pool. That blood can clot and create the environment for a stroke. That is why there is the need for blood thinners. They reduce the chance of clotting when the blood pools. I think the doc makes repair by stretching the valves, but I am not exactly clear on that. We got a lot of info at the consultation so I might not have understood or I may have been processing what the doc already said as he moved on giving additional info. But that gives you a general idea of what we are expecting. Optimally I think it will be a four or five day stay in the hospital. Often with heart procedures the patients are in the ICU when they first come out of surgery. Not sure if they told us that will happen with Art. That is what will happen with my friend Karen who is back in A Fib and perhaps heart failure (which she has been in before).


  32. Janice,
    Have you seen Kevin B’s question to you? He has asked several times and I don’t think you have seen it, though perhaps you prefer not to answer. He is looking at potentially the same surgery and has an interest. Thanks.

    Liked by 1 person

  33. I appreciate many Bible translations. I do like NKJV, HCSV, the older NIV, the ESV, and I really enjoy the wording of the NLT to help me better understand particular passages that had puzzled me in other versions. I think I have read the most from the NKJV with the NLT as a close second.

    This phone is messing with me and changed the NLT to the NFL.

    Liked by 4 people

  34. I have an older version of NIV….Paul downloaded the NIV on his phone/iPad and he does not like it…so when we read the Word together…I read from my Bible. Some changes are disconcerting and I have warned friends and family to be vigilant…..I have several older versions to do a comparison with when I have an internal check about something I have read….

    Liked by 1 person

  35. Kizzie, I read about the ESV final version of Genesis 3:16 and nearly hit the roof. That passage might be rendered an number of different ways, but I see no way to render it “your desire shall be contrary to your husband”. The word ‘contrary’ simply isn’t there in the Hebrew, and their putting it in has reduced the ESV to a paraphrase, rather than a translation. Historically, the early church fathers and the reformers regarded the phrase “your desire shall be for your husband” as some kind of desire for the husband; it was Susan Foh, in 1975, who put forward the idea that it meant women wanted to usurp their husband’s position, and she admitted that hers was a new and unique interpretation (https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/01-genesis/text/articles-books/foh-womansdesire-wtj.pdf).

    It isn’t the first time I’ve taken serious issue with the ESV interpretation. I was stunned when I came across this verse: “And Aaron shall cast lots over the two goats, one lot for the Lord and the other lot for Azazel.” (Leviticus 16:8, ESV)
    The KJV renders the same verse: “And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for the scapegoat.”
    Now, the Hebrew word rendered scapegoat is ‘azazel’ and Biblical scholars will admit there is confusion over the proper interpretation, though there is a long tradition of it meaning something like ‘the sent away one’. It was William Tyndale who first made it ‘scapegoat’. However, the ESV made ‘azazel’ a proper name, and, as a proper name, it has a history of referring to a demon, first appearing in the Apocrypha in the book of Enoch. There are grave theological errors in implying that God was telling the Israelites to send a goat into the wilderness as an offering to a demon; and in any case, that is very obviously not what God was saying to do, as evidenced by the very next chapter of Leviticus:

    If any one of the house of Israel kills an ox or a lamb or a goat in the camp, or kills it outside the camp, and does not bring it to the entrance of the tent of meeting to offer it as a gift to the Lord in front of the tabernacle of the Lord, bloodguilt shall be imputed to that man. He has shed blood, and that man shall be cut off from among his people. This is to the end that the people of Israel may bring their sacrifices that they sacrifice in the open field, that they may bring them to the Lord, to the priest at the entrance of the tent of meeting, and sacrifice them as sacrifices of peace offerings to the Lord
    ….So they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices to goat demons, after whom they whore. This shall be a statute forever for them throughout their generations.(Leviticus 17:1-7, ESV)

    That brings me to the problem I have with the Apocrypha. Things such as the introduction of Azazel, the demon, are very contradictory to the rest of Scripture. That is why I would not take what the Apocrypha has to say about the Ark of the Covenant seriously. In fact, the Apocryphal quote of Jeremiah is completely contradicted by what Jeremiah actually did say about the Ark of the Covenant:

    And when you have multiplied and been fruitful in the land, in those days, declares the Lord, they shall no more say, “The ark of the covenant of the Lord.” It shall not come to mind or be remembered or missed; it shall not be made again. (Jeremiah 3:16, ESV)

    Liked by 2 people

  36. Roscuro – The second link I shared has this to say about those words. . .

    “Scot McKnight says that the ESV has adopted a translation that is “not only mistaken but potentially dangerously wrong.” This critique seems overwrought to me. The change from “for” to “contrary to” is exegetically justifiable. The underlying term is the Hebrew preposition EL. The standard lexicon of biblical Hebrew (HALOT) includes the gloss “against” as one of its meanings for this preposition, and “against” is a synonym of “contrary to” (see number 5). Also, the preposition EL is translated as “against” in a number of different texts in a number of different versions. Just to use one example from the near context:

    Genesis 4:8 (NASB) “And Cain told Abel his brother. And it came about when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him.”

    The preposition is rendered “against” also in the ESV, NRSV, KJV, and RSV. In short, “contrary to” or “against” are within the semantic range of this term. And there is a reasonable case to be made that it means that in this particular use of the term.

    For what it is worth, I favor more literal approaches to translation—the ones that leave more interpretive options open. I favor that approach especially in cases where inner-biblical resonances are lost because of dynamic translations and in texts where the precise meaning is a matter of significant dispute. So in this case, I prefer the translation “for” rather than “contrary to,” even though I agree with the ESV’s interpretation. So I view the ESV’s translation as an entirely reasonable rendering, even though it is not the one I would have chosen.”

    Do you disagree with this author?


  37. Kiz, here is a page containing the information on the Hebrew word ‘el’ and its uses: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H413&t=KJV. It also lists every instance of this word and its translation in the OT (KJV version). Notice that Genesis 3:16 is not among the list. In the original text for Genesis 3:16 the only Hebrew word for the entire phrase ‘will be for your husband’ is a form of the Hebrew root ‘ish’ which means man:https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/gen/3/16/t_conc_3016. Furthermore, since perhaps the ‘el’ is conveyed in the particular case of ‘ish’ used in Genesis 3:16 (I can’t read the Hebrew text to see how ‘ish’ is modified), if you read the first link you will see ‘el’ is translated into almost every English preposition which might convey a sense of movement towards an object, to, into, through, etc. That, in fact, is the main sense of the Hebrew preposition ‘el’, that of “denoting motion towards, but occasionally used of a quiescent position” (Strong’s). Does ‘contrary to’ denote either motion towards or a quiescent position? Throughout history, translators have felt that ‘to’ or ‘for’ is the best translation in Genesis 3:16. Why is it only now, when there are Biblical concerns being raised about complementarian teachings, do translators of a version which is widely used in complementarian circles decide to use ‘contrary to’?

    Liked by 1 person

  38. My folks and I just rescued my cat, Kchu, who had been fighting with an pine marten and gone up a tree and as both fell out, the cat was hung up on a dead branch and couldn’t free himself. The marten ran back up the tree and was biting Kchu. I threw rocks until the marten ran down and away. Poor cat was hanging head down and couldn’t do anything but meow piteously. Dad helped me carry our 10 foot stepladder from the shop and get it set up and I tried to use a long board to push the cat up and off the branch, but it didn’t work. I finally found the extendable pruning saw and was able to push him off with that and let him ride it down slowing his fall. He was about 25 feet in the air. We doctored the wounds we could find and he’s going to be really sore for a few days – hoping he doesn’t have any internal injuries.

    I’m exhausted and I’m pretty sure my arms aren’t going to work very well tomorrow – amazing how adrenaline can get you to stand atop a ladder when you’re scared of heights and work at the end of a long stick with arms outstretched to rescue your animal.

    Liked by 8 people

  39. Here are the number of times ‘el’ is translated in the ESV: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H413&t=ESV Once again, Genesis 3:16 is not on the list.

    The above is why I’m beginning to doubt proponents of the current popular form of conservative Christian complementarianism. The author who connected ‘el’ to Genesis 3:16 used the words “The underlying term is the Hebrew preposition EL.” Notice, he doesn’t come out and claim ‘el’ is in Genesis 3:16, and it doesn’t seem to be – he just says it is the underlying term, a nebulous phrase which might leave one, who hasn’t the time or knowledge to research, to think ‘el’ is in Genesis 3:16, while disarming the scholar who knows it isn’t there by merely asserting that it ‘underlies’ the passage. It is a phenomena I see again and again. I referred in my comment above to Susan Foh and how her interpretation isn’t historical. Another woman blogger pointed this out, and a prominent complementarian, Kevin de Young took issue with her observation. He quoted a lesser known reformer to show that wasn’t the case. However, his quote of the reformer took the reformer out of context. That reformer actually taught a traditional approach to Genesis 3:16, and the quote De Young used wasn’t even from the reformer’s commentary on Genesis 3:16. When proponents of a movement resort to trickery and sleight of hand to find support for their teachings, it raises serious questions.


  40. Husband looked at my pictures and said it was a fisher – about 3 feet long (I thought he was a fisher at first, but they’re so rare I second guessed myself)

    Liked by 2 people

  41. Cheryl, the fact remains that he misquoted the reformer. I have appreciated de Young’s writing in the past, which made it all the more disquieting when I read the misquotation. See for yourself – here is De Young’s article in which he makes the quotation: https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/kevindeyoung/2013/05/03/new-wave-complementarianism-a-question-and-a-concern/:

    “…my quick perusal of the Reformation Commentary on Scripture shows that Johannes Brenz (1499-1570) wrote about “when women aspire to dominate their husbands in running the household” in his commentary on Genesis 3:16…”

    Here is the reformer’s, Johannes Brenz, real views on Genesis 3:16:

    Now let us attend to the cross – or what they call the “corrections” (for so they call the works of satisfaction that are customarily imposed on sinners for the sake of correcting their lives) – that God imposes on the woman. … There are two parts to a woman’s cross. One concerns conception and childbirth. This includes all the sorrow, all the labor, all the worry and anxiety of bearing and raising children. …
    The other part of a woman’s cross is subjection to the man’s authority. This is a great cross. Just as the woman, if she hadn’t sinned, would have given birth not only without pain but even with great joy and delight, so also she would have been equal to the man in the administration of things, though the man would always have been head of the woman. But now, having sinned, she is subjected to the will and authority and domination of the man. Accordingly, God not only imposes this cross on the woman … but also establishes this order in the public administration of things, so that the man may be the ruler and the woman would be under the man’s authority. page 164 – 165 Gen. 1-11, Thompson, John L. Inter Varsity Press 2012.

    The Brenz quote came from this blog post: https://bltnotjustasandwich.com/2014/04/02/kevin-deyoung-and-the-subordination-of-women-cont/. Note that this comes from Brenz’s actual commentary on Genesis 3:16. The blog author notes Brenz did say what de Young said he did, but in the context of personal observation during a discussion about Deborah and the Amazons, not from Brenz’s commentary on Genesis 3:16. One could argue it was a slight error, but de Young’s claim was that Brenz had said it about Genesis 3:16 and Brenz did not, and de Young should have known that. The above Brenz quote comes from the book de Young mentions, The Reformed Commentary on Scripture.


  42. Roscuro, he said “my quick perusal,” which probably means he looked at stuff too hastily (and would likely be willing to correct his error) rather than a deliberate misreading. I don’t know whether he takes comments on the site you linked (I’m on my way to bed and not looking stuff up), but if he doesn’t, if you send me the relevant data, we can get it to him.


  43. Thanks, Janice, for the detail. I was born with a severe heart condition (Tetralogy of Fallot) that was repaired surgically when I was 11 and 15. It made a huge difference and life since then has been mostly normal. But the limitations of 1970ish surgical methods and tools left the pulmonary valve leaky, and the ventricle has gradually enlarged over the years. Last year two cardiologists disagreed about the severity of the leakage and enlargement and whether or not I should have the valve replaced.

    Though the childhood surgeries gave me normal circulation, my heart is still not structured normally, and the only way to replace the valve is with full open chest surgery. I’m due for a recheck this fall; we’ll see what comes of that.

    I’m glad to hear Art’s surgery will be less invasive. Be assured of my prayers this week for him and you.

    Liked by 5 people

  44. Good debate tonight, an estimated 500 (?) people in the audience, and there will (I’m sure) be a video. 🙂 Along with being smart and a very adept debater, our pastor has a gracious manner, always tempered (where appropriate) with humor and bathed in good will. It’s an inspiring example. Other debater also was very likable, founder of Skeptic magazine and he’s been on Colbert (and other) TV programs.

    I see since getting home that there was an explosion in NY tonight.

    Liked by 3 people

  45. So, with some more digging, it seems ‘el’ is in the text, in the form of a joined word ‘we-el’ meaning ‘and to’. However, that still does not make ‘contrary to’ a viable translation. In fact it makes it even less so, since if the ‘to’ is linked to the ‘and’, the phrase must be ‘and to your husband shall be your desire’. All the claims that the desire is a wish to usurp the husband have placed the preposition ‘el’ after the noun ‘desire’. Since the preposition is linked to the conjunction at the beginning of the phrase, it cannot be placed after the noun ‘desire’.

    Cheryl, on de Young, both those blog posts were written quite a while ago. I only found out about them recently when on another site, somebody cited de Young’s quote to try to prove Foh was correct. It was only then, while trying to find Brenz’s original words, that I came across the second post showing the misquote. De Young has the book where Brenz’s commentary is published, so he has the necessary data already.


  46. NKJV for me, I loved the Amplified Bible before that and now use the ESV–I think– which is my Lutheran Study Bible (which I use for the extensive BOB–bottom of the Bible–page notes.

    Really, NKJV is my favorite, just like Cheryl said.

    The photo looked like a Wyeth to me when I finally looked at it off my phone. Truly amazing shots–the phone took, I just pointed.

    Another busy day, another birthday party (actually two) and I did not finish my work by last night. I’ve given myself grace until tomorrow night–only 45 pages to go and it’s my own deadline, anyway.

    A blessed Sunday to all.

    Liked by 2 people

  47. I’m trying to wake up with some coffee, kind of a late Saturday for me 🙂 Kicking my heels up at the “Is there a God?” debate. I am getting wild in my old age.

    This was who our pastor debated:


    It’s back to (real) work tomorrow for me, but I got a whole lot done and am much closer to the bathroom decisions I needed to make.

    I think I may squeeze a nap in this afternoon after church.

    Liked by 1 person

  48. Atheists have to have their own version of Genesis 1. I might suggest:

    1 In the beginning there was nothing. Absolutely nothing. No atoms, no neutrons/protons/electrons. Nothing! Nothing at all.
    2. Suddenly! There was this BIG BANG
    3. From that sprang not only a sun and moon and uncountable stars, but little critters that would evolve into people who wondered where they came from.

    How else could it happen? What caused the BIG BANG?
    You mean it didn’t have a cause?

    Nobody understand the concept of “nothing”. Nor forever. Do heaven and hell last forever?
    Exactly what does that mean?
    Genesis 1:1 starts out “In the beginning God….”

    But there was no beginning for God. John 1:1 says “In the beginning WAS…..”
    No I don’t understand it. But I believe it.

    Liked by 5 people

  49. Church was good. Church picnic was good. And soon I am off to bowling. Seventeen year old offered to babysit. Now, this is an extremely unusual occurrence. It was an attempt on my part to get my husband (who used to be a semipro bowler) up and motivated to move a bit. And he is off truck driving and I am going bowling. What?

    Liked by 1 person

  50. Roscuro’s comment brought up another question. What do you (any of you) think a “complementarian” is, & are you one?

    Until the recent controversies, I hadn’t read a lot on the topic, but my understanding was that it means that husbands & wives are equal in God’s sight (co-heirs with Christ), but have different roles in the marriage & family, with the husband being the benevolent head (servant-leader) of the wife & family.

    My understanding is that the other view is egalatarianism, which says (I think) that husbands & wives share the roles & duties within the marriage & family, & does not seem to believe in male headship.

    Are there are views?


  51. Speaking of bowling, my cousin Mike has had over 40 perfect (300) games. I don’t know why he didn’t go pro, but he may have been semi-pro at one time. His son rolled his first 300 a few years ago, & I think he’s had more since then.

    I think my highest was 113. Haven’t bowled in ages.


  52. Complementarian views were big among Christians some years ago — and struck me at the time as a reasonable approach — but I haven’t kept up wit the thinking on that, whether it’s evolved or not ?

    Jen Nush got a pretty funny cameo tonight on the Emmy into skit


  53. Cheryl | September 17, 2016 at 11:12 am “Peter, Mumsee, and Kevin fell down on the job last night, so I stepped in for them.”

    I had a good reason. I was at a fellowship conference in the Ozarks since Thursday night. There was no WiFi and very poor cell reception, so we all enjoyed old fashioned Christian fellowship without electronics. Well, some got enough service to check football scores or text, but not many. It was relaxing. There were over 250 people from Missouri, Illinois, Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana and a few other places. The preaching was whatever the men felt called to preach. They were chosen form those attending, rather than inviting specific men to preach. I bunked with my son and two young men form Kansas City who were former prisoners, both converted to Christ while behind bars. Precious brothers in the Lord desiring to follow Him.

    Now back to the norm.

    Liked by 4 people

  54. DJ – What I was taught about the biblical roles of husband & wife many years ago is what I described as my understanding of complementarian, but I hadn’t heard that word attached to the teaching until I started reading things about complementarianism vs. egalatarianism. It seemed to fit.


  55. Sunrise over th Straits of Juan de Fuca. The pictures look great on this blog!

    Survived the second birthday party and skipped the third. It’s 100 degrees here and I worked hard yesterday. Novel reading time!

    Liked by 2 people

  56. Karen, I think a complementarian is (and this is referring more to those who teach the concept, rather than those who are laypeople) one who thinks they are effectively fighting against the cultural rot of feminism by setting out cultural parameters of male and female behaviour and proving those parameters by appealing to selected Bible verses. The problem with that approach is that it ends up in legalism, which is exactly where complementarianism is rapidly approaching. Looking at ancient and modern history, I think that radical feminism is not the force that complementarians fear it is, and that it will soon be over. In allying themselves with other radically alternative movements, radical feminism has written its own death certificate. The redefining-of-gender movement and feminism will not survive long together, and women are always the losers in a cultural conflict. I have observed that reactionary movements in the church are typically about twenty years behind the times. Complementarians are hammering away at radical feminism – or rather the radical feminism they perceive as being behind the liberal egalitarian movement (there are egalitarians who are much more orthodox and even conservative in their viewpoint), while the world and the liberal ‘church’ have already moved on to the next cultural fad.

    I’m neither egalitarian nor complementarian. Both views tend to move toward their extreme opposites, both of which end up in error. I do not see that one needs to be either. The Bible does not prescribe anything beyond the submission and love instructions to wife and husband, and the appointment of male elders. Everything else is by the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer and the church.

    Liked by 2 people

  57. Roscuro – Thanks for that explanation.

    It does seem that we like to put labels & tags on ourselves, doesn’t it? As I said, I had the biblical teaching before I heard a word that seemed to describe it. I think of it (the way I believe, & the way the word “complementarianism” sounds) as somewhere between the more liberal egalitarian views & the extreme “patriarchal” type views. Too bad the word has become a movement straying into other matters.


  58. KIzzie, I was going to say a third view is patriarchy. It does seem that a lot of complementarians are inching over that direction, which is more than a little scary.

    Years ago I knew a woman who was a “Christian feminist,” and I watched it become more and more important in her theology. By the time our friendship ended, she told me (1) she didn’t have a problem with Jesus, but she had a problem with the apostle Paul and (2) she wouldn’t feel comfortable attending a church that didn’t allow women preachers. Besides the theological problems of the statements themselves, the reality is that churches that allow women preachers are usually liberal theologically in other ways. I imagine it is possible to find a church that accepts women preachers and still believes in the inerrancy of Scripture (though her admitted “problem with the apostle Paul” suggests she herself was moving away from that belief) and that still believes Jesus is the only way to God, and so forth–but it’s going to be fairly unlikely, and you are limiting yourself in ridiculous ways if you say it has to be orthodox AND agree with my interpretation of this point that is usually held by the unorthodox. Even if you believe that women can be pastors, it still seems possible to see the good faith belief of other Christians and accept that they think it’s clear in Scripture.

    But that experience, that friendship, warned me of the real dangers of Christian feminism. Likewise, I know people in the patriarchy camp, and their beliefs scare me. I’m happy to have a husband who believes it is job to be head of our home, but is very quick to be open to my feedback on things (admitting very quickly if I make him reconsider something, acknowledging where he is wrong, publicly telling people that one reason I married him is he respects my ability to think and even to respectfully disagree with him, etc.). I think the biblical model starts with the husband loving his wife, wooing her, and her natural response to willingly submit to such a man.

    Which is one reason that this rewriting of this verse is so treacherous. It suggests a woman’s default position is rebellion, and teaches a man to have his defenses up against her, rather than the truth that a woman is designed to willingly follow a man who leads well. (Not that we aren’t ever inclined to sinfully manipulate, seek our own way, etc., but I do think that a woman will in generally willingly surrender the hard work of leadership to a man she respects and trusts to lead the family well.)

    Liked by 2 people

  59. Michelle, they are all gorgeous. I showed my husband the earlier three, and he told me what advanced technique you used to get the window photo, and I told him I don’t think you used that; you took them with your cell phone.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.