MetaCatholic

Joel Garver notes a new study Bible that would otherwise have passed me by entirely: The Apologetics Study Bible. His post is well worth reading, and given that he doesn’t really think that much of the idea, he’s really very kind to it. But I did think this was a particularly telling criticism:

While there are 130 articles in the study Bible “written by today’s leading Christian thinkers” dealing with pressing issues of our day and “life’s ultimate questions,” I searched in vain for the one on the church’s captivity to marketing-driven consumer culture. Alas.

Given my previously expressed scepticism about just how valuable study Bibles are, to say nothing of my views on the Holman Christian Standard Bible (of which this is an edition) here, and here I guess I would hardly be likely to welcome this with open arms.

I did take a look at the sample pages provided on the website to see if I should reconsider these prejudices. I presume these samples showcase what they think are its strengths, and all I can say is that if these are its strengths, I would hate to see its weaknesses. They focus on the opening chapters of Genesis:

Gradually by the 19th century a new consensus arose among “critical” scholars that became the starting point of all future study. They understood the Pentateuch was the product of a series of unnamed Jewish editors who progressively stitched together pieces of preexisting sources dating from the tenth to the sixth centuries BC. Instead of being “Mosaic,” the Pentateuch was viewed as a “mosaic.” Such scholars today often view the stories as simple fabrications conceived hundreds of years after the supposed events, perhaps during the exile.
     There is significant evidence, however, that Genesis reflects the political and cultural setting of the second millennium.

It continues in the same vein, seeking to return to those days when just about the only bit Moses didn’t write was the account of his death. Don’t you just love that “critical” together with a fairly major misrepresentation of the range of views from creative redaction through retellings to major re-visioning all listed as “simple fabrications”!

And what about this?

Are the days of Genesis to be interpreted literally?
This question has stoked controversy among conservative Christians in recent times, but proven of little interest to theistic evolutionists and those rejecting Genesis as God’s inerrant word. The debate has been primarily between young and old earth creationists who believe God literally created the various kinds of living things (contra the common descent of Darwinism). Both sides hold that humans have not descended from other species, and reject the atheism and macro-evolutionary theory of neo-Darwinism.
   …. Happily, one thing is not debatable among those who believe the Bible: even if the correct interpretation of the creation days is not readily apparent in the present generation, the Bible can be trusted in every way.

It would seem that young and old earth creationism are the only views open to “those who believe the Bible.” And they call this apologetics.

Not, I think, a Bible I’m going to be recommending anytime soon.

Back when I reviewed Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, a few days after publication, I ended by focusing on the importance of the scripture quotations in the churchyard at Godric’s Hollow. I said:

Most interesting of all is the attention given to the headstones in the churchyard at Godric’s Hollow. On the Dumbledore family tomb is inscribed: “Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also” (Matt 6:21). This serves in so many ways as a comment not only on Dumbledore’s situation, but in some way defines a major theme of the books. On the Potter family tomb is the quotation (already mentioned above) “The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death” (1 Cor 15:26). Again, this is a theme that re-emerges in several ways. The ensuing discussion between Harry and Hermione underscores this. In one sense it is exactly what Voldemort has always thought as he sought to master death. In another it is the willingness to enter into a life beyond death, and therefore to prepared to lay down one’s own life for another, making death not an enemy but a friend, to accept that it cannot be mastered, and that fear of death can destroy life.

Now, in an interview reported on MTV, Jo Rowling says:

“They’re very British books, so on a very practical note Harry was going to find biblical quotations on tombstones,” Rowling explained. “[But] I think those two particular quotations he finds on the tombstones at Godric’s Hollow, they sum up — they almost epitomize the whole series.”

I’ve failed to convince some of those so bedazzled by mention of witches and wizards that they could see no Christian themes at all, but perhaps this author’s statement will help.

Or, in other words, “I was right, you were wrong, na, na, na-na-na.”

Somewhat bizarrely, at least to my mind, the Army’s Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Richard Dannatt, has spoken out about the importance of telling soldiers about life after death.

I am sure that in his position, he has a responsibility to see that the welfare of all soldiers is looked after in the round, and that includes making provision for their spiritual needs.

Equally, I am sure that if I was a squaddie, I would want the big boss of the army to be putting his efforts into making sure I got the equipment, resources, back-up and strategy needed to minimise the inevitable and accepted risks of my getting killed. I would start to get quite worried about someone who talked about preparing me for getting killed. His job is to make sure his troops are as safe as they can be in an unsafe area, and to worry about keeping them alive to the best of his ability while gaining the strategic objectives.

Perhaps General Dannatt has strayed into the wrong religion: I thought it was the fundamentalists of another religion who promised their soldiers paradise if they died killing the enemy.