“And he was laid in a manger, because there was no place for him elsewhere.”

Ok, so the Bible is very clear that Jesus was placed in a manger.  But where’s the part about searching for a hotel room late at night in the pouring rain?  Where’s the part about the innkeeper refusing to give them a room for the night?  Where’s the part of having to spend the night—and give birth—in a stable or a cave?  Where are the ox and ass?

It’s not there; not any of it.

The story that has been told and retold, dramatized and cartoonized countless times throughout the centuries is very much unlike the account we read in the Scripture.  So, today, just for the sake of being true to the text, I want to present an alternative story, based on the Biblical account.  I’m not saying I know without doubt that this is how things really went down, but I think there is at least as much support for this version as there is for the traditional version, maybe more.

I think it’s highly likely that Joseph and Mary actually gave birth in the home of a relative of Joseph, or at least a sympathetic friend.  My conclusion on this comes from personal study, investigation of the study of others, and my experience living in a culture that it in many ways similar (even now in the 21 century) to that of Mary and Joseph.

Here are my reasons for thinking this:

1. The word that is often translated “inn” in Luke 2:7—kataluma— is also the same word that is used for the “upper room” in which Jesus and the disciples ate their final meal together.  The word literally means “guest room” which could be interpreted as an upper room for guests or a hotel type situation.  In most translations (and I like the NLT because it takes a step in the right direction here) the word “inn” is used as is more a cultural interpretation than a statement of known fact.

2. Most homes during this time period not only had an upper room for guests, but the lower portion of the home was used for housing animals and livestock during night.  As such, the lower area of the home had mangers (feeding troughs).  It is absolutely conceivable that Mary and Joseph were staying in the home of a family member, but that the guest room was already occupied by another (probably older) member of the family.

3. In most non-Western places around the world, when one visits his/her place of origin, or a place where he/she still has family, staying in a hotel is unthinkable–it’s expensive and a dishonor to family members in the area.  Since Joseph was from the area he likely would have had lots of family around.  Being poor, he likely would not have sought out a hotel.  The only caveat to this might have been that nobody wanted to give housing to the pregnant-out-of-wedlock Mary, but this seems an unlikely scenario.

4. Look at the wording of the text, the mention of the kataluma comes after the baby is born.  There is no talk of them frantically searching for a place to stay.  It’s more than likely that they had already been in Bethlehem for some time before the birth.  The whole “born in stable” storyline comes only from the mention of a manger, which could have easily been a manger in the lower portion of a home–”Mary laid the baby in a manger, because there was no room for them in the better-suited guest room above,” or something like this.

5.  Finally, the absence of more information should lead us to believe that what took place was nothing out of the ordinary; that things more or less followed the culturally appropriate patterns which, in this case, would mean staying with family and giving birth in the home surrounded by family…and not cows…or sheep…or whatever else.

Anyway, I actually find this version of the story more comforting and realistic.

It may not be a matter of essential faith, but it does give a good reminder to the power of interpretation, cultural background, and translation…we must be careful.  We must be careful to take the Word of God for what it is and not add or subtract from it.  In the Christmas story, at least, we have added much.

May our hope and joy this season come not in the story of Christmas…but in the Christ.

For more information:  Out of Adullam,  Better Bibles Blog,  Confession and Truth, and Tough Questions Answered

The dawn of multimedia has changed the way we see, we comprehend and we learn. Specially benefitting the various businesses in their business communication, multimedia productions have become the most sought after way to efficiently influence the audiences. The amalgamation of multiple media, such as visual imagery, text, audio, video, graphics and animation, augment the impact of the message that a company wants to convey to its target audiences.

It is the non-linear characteristic of the multimedia productions that provides the user with the luxury of viewing it as per their convenience. Therefore, if a company develops a multimedia production to make an impact on its target market, then the results ought to be better as compared to the conventional marketing media. The more effective you want your multimedia production to be, the more elaborate work will it demand. Generally, multimedia production involves the following steps of incorporation:

Conceptualization – It involves starting with a simple idea and establishing a vision for the multimedia production. One needs to identify the theme of the concept and visualize the impact it will create in the minds of the end users.

Content gathering or creation – It involves gathering the content for the previously conceptualized idea. For instance, the video clips, the images, the graphics and the text content need to be gathered, simultaneously considering the copyright issues.

Development & integrating – It involves bringing together the gathered content in an organized and comprehensive manner to create a compelling multimedia production.

Testing – This step cannot be jumped because it is extremely necessary to ensure effectiveness of the production. Any kind of small and big error can be found out with proper implementation of this step. Your multimedia production is now ready for presenting to the audiences.

Now, what if this multimedia production is intended for global audiences? It would then require more elaborate process, including Voice-overs, Subtitle translation and production, Dubbing as well as Real-time interpretation. Multimedia production needs careful planning and design, and this is exactly what Maatra Global offers you.

Maatra is well equipped to provide multimedia material. This includes creation and recreation of material in various formats. Multimedia can include television commercials or shorts, documentaries, narratives, interactive communication, self-tutoring material, etc.

Apart from this we also produce hard copies in the area of publishing. We work extensively with the finest printing houses globally to bring you truly world class material. This is across material whether it is paper or vinyl. We can deliver high volume and high quality. We undertake producing material for advertising, merchandising, books, manuals, brochures, CD’s and other promotional material. We can also provide transmission ready tapes, betas, DVD’s etc.

To enjoy an edge over others in market communication, log on to www.maatraglobal.com

Attempt to describe anarchy and why we find an attachment to basic psychological principle. A well-accepted definition is rooted in etymology. ‘An’ in Greek traditionally means ‘opposite to’ or ’without’ – safe to say, a negation. ‘Archy’ is the from the word ‘arkhein’ meaning ‘rule’ or ‘power’, similar to the ending –cracy, as in democracy. ‘Anarchy’ in political or human management jargon is ‘without rule or power’ though the expression can be applied to all hierarchical strata.

Applying this definition to a culture such as USA’s allows many interpretations, but many taken negatively. When one thinks of anarchy they think of disorder. Pierre Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin and Pyotr Kropotkin described their utopias based on merit, personal responsibility, hierarchical destruction, and limitless innovation as a response to oppression connected to violent revolutions and personal annihilation. Not only was a person’s body and mind destroyed but attempts were, and still are made to end cultures, ideas, opposing realities and eschatological differences. The option to revolt hasn’t changed for some of us.

Mikhail Bakunin suggested “Three elements or, if you like, three fundamental principles constitute the essential conditions of all human development, collective or individual, in history: (1) human animality; (2) thought; and (3) rebellion. To the first properly corresponds social and private economy; to the second, science; to the third, liberty.” In the state of thought, there is little concrete conviction as to how anarchy can play a role, other than vagaries and generalizations of psychic diversity. We subjugate thought into the realm of persons or collate it into methodological analysis. In either discretionary path, thought and the mind are considered part of a natural order or technical gradation and not of equal footing, for mentality is never grounded but is expected to continuously take flight above nonhumans and into the arena of advancement.

Included in the category of anarchist is a choice to affiliate with those who can only see another person to their rational core, where a conflict resulting in death is often avoidable. While human management, or as Bakunin puts it “social and private economy” is for security and mortality avoidance, anarchy relies on mortal purpose. If the need to destroy another’s intentions arises, each will accept it as is. Security is then understood as what comes next: one dies with dignity and living faith in the continued intentions of anarchy.

The choice lies at the root of what many describe with biopsychosocial aptitude. Robert Hunter’s theory of anarchic competition is human pitted against human thus creating environmental, technological and mental upheaval only restored by understanding synergy within each influence. For many a time, anarchy or the common person has believed in wholeness versus destruction as the inevitable resolution to mired consequences. When destruction and chaos do arrive and thrive, knowing there is no need for whole – which will lead to control, power, rule and ‘hierarchy’ – better serves an anarchic mandate according to any of Bakunin’s three principles. Our animality will designate order within the gestalt; science will over-imply categorical imperative; and rebellion can never be unified with those who cannot exclaim “Anarkhein!”

The realization there is a new form of ‘caput mortuum” – to use Bakunin’s term for those opposed to God’s majestic manifest of manly materialism – also inaugurates a deadhead, freeloading usurpation, otherwise we become like the snail and not a pack of wolves. Anarchy must evade condoned synchronicity of a ‘movement’ in order for a real biopsychosocial human development to occur in Murray Bookchin’s “second nature.” Only in a manifest of manly materialism can applied anarchy take place, for true nature, or our Anti-Tekne, is a place of survivalism with social revolutionary patterning always resulting as-is.

By Tony Butler, Director of the Museum of East Anglian Life

The musings of Nobel laureates, economists and scientists are coming to the market-town of Stowmarket as the Museum of East Anglian Life (MEAL) plays host to the University of Cambridge’s 100 Questions (produced by its Sustainable Leadership Programme). The installation contains provocations from amongst others Wangari Maathai, Nicholas Stern and Jonathan Porritt. Visitors, it is hoped will be inspired to add their own prescient questions to press policy makers as they grapple with the political challenges of climate change. Two questions grabbed my attention, one from Simon Schama, “How do we mobilize culture -  pop and high – to create the words, images and music – that will make the destruction of the planet and its irreversible loss to our posterity, the cause of the world’s people?” The other question was from Sarah Severn, Director of Horizons “How might we break through the paradigm of continuous economic growth as the only viable future for humanity?”

To me there is moral and social imperative to enjoying more with less. A range studies have shown that despite GDP tripling in 30 years, people in the West live in poorer environments, suffer from greater levels of mental illness and are generally more unhappy than their counterparts in many developing countries. According to the New Economics Foundation’s Happy Planet index Costa Rica and Vanuatu are far better places to live than the UK which was 74^th out of 200 countries surveyed whilst the US languished in 114^th place. Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett’s brilliant The Spirit Level (2008) drew on research from over 100 countries and concluded that more equal societies almost always do better. People who lived in countries where the gap between rich and poor was narrower were invariably happier and had a lower carbon footprint.

At MEAL we’ve been attracted to the idea of interpreting the lives of people in rural East Anglia in terms of their well being. In 2009 we launched an online exhibition  When Were We Happy which tried to compare comparative levels of well-being in the village of Stowupland in 1850, 1901, 1940 and 2009. The museum’s business planning is now based on NEF’s five ways to well-being. All our activities should ensure that people make new friends, are more active, learn something new, look at the world differently and give back to their communities in some way.

Next year we are putting on a small exhibition about Trust. We are trying to articulate why levels of trust appeared to be higher in communities 100 years ago than they are today. There are many everyday objects such as bottles of herbal medicine prepared by the village ‘midwife’ which show the health of a community was based on reciprocity, non-monetary transactions which built strong social networks and relationships  (‘social capital’ in today’s parlance). According to the economist and Labour peer Richard Layard in his book Happiness (2007), those societies which are more trusting have high levels of democratic participation and religious faith and are made up of communities which are homogeneous and whose members have strong family ties and common interests.

However if living a good life which doesn’t cost the earth consists of having less and living in strong, safe but almost static communities, the future seems wholesome but unattractive. The cultural challenge remains trying to steer a course between the devil of hair shirt environmentalism and the deep blue sea of Daily Mail reaction.

In discovering the hidden qualities of God I have discovered one of these to be significantly applicable to Bible Interpretation.  While God created a very diverse number and types of people with different talents, abilities, personalities and physical qualities we were all made in the image and likeness of God.  When people see Christians they should see the qualities of their Father so that they can come to know these hidden qualities of Him also.  So while studying the Bible I discovered that God cares a lot about the details.  I know some people look at the big picture only and they are happy with staying at the 1000 foot view of the scriptures.  Others I’ve found like to get the Word and look at it through a microscope so that they can fully understand every the little detail.  I get very frustrated sometimes when I listen to a preacher who preaches at the 1000 feet view level.  I constantly say to myself, that is not what God said.  I think overall it is what God said, but it is the fine little details that were omitted to potentially give the wrong impression of what God said.  I don’t think it is wrong to stay at the 1000 feet level, it’s just not for me.  You see when I read the scripture that told me God knows the number of hairs on my head, I very quickly realized that God cares about and pays very close attention to the most minute and trivial details of every area of our life.   If God is truly detail oriented to an extreme and I would say that He is, then this will help us in our understanding the Bible if we can apply a certain similar type of reasoning when we study the Bible.  It would immediately help you, if you just become aware of how God operates.  Just by knowing that God cares about the smallest of details will help you change your focus to potentially have a greater understanding of the Word of God, even though that might not totally fit your personality.

 My wife and I were eating out at a restaurant and we looked the menu over and placed our orders.  If didn’t matter what we ate or what we liked, then why was there someone asking us what we wanted?   I think sometimes people miss out on the basics of life, but we placed our order and asked for things to be prepared a certain way.  Something like a burger with mustard, lettuce and tomato.  So here is the rise of a huge potential problem, we were concerned with the details and someone either in the food service or preparation phase was not.   O sure we got the 1000 foot view of the burger delivered to us, but because someone either assumed incorrectly or didn’t hear the details and the end product was wrong.  Does it matter if your customer got something they didn’t order even though it was still pretty good and edible.    Sometimes customers are allergic to certain things like pickles and tell the server no pickles.  It they ate this it might make them sick or kill them.  Is that OK?  Is it important for food service and food preparation staff to be careful to follow directions?  If you don’t think so, you have a major problem.  You see if it matters how physical food is prepared it also matters how spiritual food is prepared and served.  There is no difference between the concept of both of these food sources.  The details matter a tremendous amount in both the preparation and the delivery of the Word of God.

 When I worked as a computer programmer I was very fortunate that God taught me to pay close attention to all of the details.  When you write software the details matters.  You can write a large routine correctly and it looks like it ought to work perfectly for what it was designed to do.  However, if you leave out even a single character like a semi-colon or a period it could change the logic so that it does not function correctly at all.  In my early years of mainframe computer programming I wrote a lot of code in COBOL.  The simple omission of a period in COBOL could cause huge problems and be extremely difficult to debug and correct.  Later on in work, I learned C++ and the omission of a semi-colon could also cause a similar major problem.  You see a principle here from software construction that the smallest little detail matters.  The omission of a single character can effect the outcome and actually make the rest of the code useless.  This principle actually applies to Bible interpretation whether you realize it or not.  You might not have followed my comments on writing software and find it hard to relate to my analogy, but I hope you at least understand the general concepts.

 You know what happens when you become detail oriented?  You start looking at every word in a style with much close observation and analysis.  Knowing the details doesn’t change the big picture, but it enhances your ability to understand and to teach it.  Attempt to rise to God’s level of detail analysis.  See the details like God intended you to see them.  Get into the details and it will change your perspective on the Word of God.

Putting MKK 2009 together was not without its challenges, like others we too have suffered due to the economic meltdown.

 We are proud to say that the 10th Media Kidocracy Konference (MKK 2009) which ran from the 14th to the 18th December 2009 was a resounding success.

On the final day the young delegates (12 – 18 years old) presented their productions in a four hour closing ceremony which included video, online, graffiti and radio presentations.

 The closing ceremony also included performances by young Capetonian talent such as Shaz & B, Apple and Cinnamon and Grand Alliance.

The photographers have captured the contrast between the beauty of our natural landscape and the filth that soils it.

The television group challenged us to re-examine our so-called natural ways of being as men and women with respect to violence within the home.

The graffiti group showed through their piece that although we may differ linguistically and/or culturally, we can live in harmony.

The online and radio groups have spread the word that violence is not and never will be an option, be it violence inflicted by others through forced child labour or self-inflicted violence in the form of substance abuse.

WATCH THE ONLINE GROUP’S POWERPOINT PRESENTATION (CLICK HERE)

LISTEN TO THE RADIO GROUP’S FEATURE (CLICK HERE)

Together these products send a resounding message that states that their vision for tomorrow is one in which they wish not to live in fear and is filled with hope.

We would like to thank the following individuals and organizations for their assistance through advice and contributions in making this conference a success:

St Agnes Primary School and in particular the principal Mr. Alfonso Louw and caretaker Mr. Marsh.

Mr. Darion Pillay from Woolworths Financial Services

Mr Neil John Smith from John Smith Photography and Design

Mr. Brad Hale from Wild Organic Foods

Superfoto Canal Walk

Shoprite Woodstock

Ms. Lache Woldson from MTN

The Indibano Group

Loaded Smoothies

MAK1

We would also like to thank:

Elroy Williams for logistical support

Brenda Leonard and Belinda Sepkit from Bush Radio’s admin department who made the lunches

All the production facilitators and content facilitators.

The guest speakers who joined us on the first day of the conference, especially Ms Jennifer Hartnick from the Provincial Parliament whose kind and gentle words set a good tone for the conference.

We would also like to thank our delegates who joined us from as far a-field as Northern Ireland (Public Achievement) and Canada (Canada World Youth).

Join our friendly, communicative and practical Standard Arabic/Urdu language classes in the heart of the city! “Those who know nothing of foreign languages, know nothing of their own.” – Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe

Our Arabic/Urdu courses are designed to build your fluency and confidence to communicate effectively in a wide range of situations with well qualified, trained and experienced professionals. We consider it to be the major goal of our Arabic courses to have you use Standard Arabic language in as large a variety of real-life situations as possible. By keeping our Language classes size limited to 10 students, we ensure that each learner actively participates. Our Arabic/Urdu classes are provided by fully qualified, experienced native Arabic teachers. We guarantee that your Arabic course will be a fun, effective and rewarding experience!

Invariably, a student of the Bible addresses this question, usually early in his or her life and with the inexperience accompanying that youth.  “Whose interpretation is correct?”  I firmly say no man’s opinion is sufficient.  Buried deep in this question is a bias toward human-centered perspective, one that emanates from and reports back to the self with cursory attention, if any, to the Truth-giver.

We might know of created things by investigating them horizontally as we are ourselves creatures.  However, we cannot breach our creatureliness to examine that which creates.  We are always only created, of ourselves bound to a creature’s understanding except by interference initiated by the Creator.

The creation does not beckon the Creator’s hand to bring it into being, neither does it engage the creator of its own intent.  Rather, the hand that creates further participates in the existence of the creation and through this interaction the Creator reveals the Creator’s self to his creatures.

Apart from the Creator a creature can form only opinions of the Creator, interpretations of indirect, tangential evidence.  So, the efforts of mankind toward some knowing of God apart from God’s initiation are speculation at best.

We are called to humility and patience for the Creator’s continued work in us.  Even our creaturely response is contingent to the Creator’s initiative.

Whose interpretation is right?  No man’s.

I have always thought about veiling in terms of dressing modestly. And I agree with dressing modestly, so I thought I have no problem with the idea of veiling. I wasn’t convinced that the traditionally-understood Islamic prescription for women’s dress was actually God’s prescription, but it fitted the bill for modesty anyway and so I could see myself adopting it. I really like it actually, it is very feminine, dignified, pretty, modest and elegant all in one. I think it is a huge draw for a lot of women precisely because of this combination – a combination that does not exist in western culture.

It recently hit me that there is actually a big difference between the practice of veiling and just dressing modestly. Veiling is the adoption of a strict dress code which must be observed at all times when in the presence of men outside one’s immediate family. A dress code which is sufficiently cumbersome that it would tend to be taken off when at home with family. Thus it results in two modes of dress, for two different types of company.

I also put on additional clothes to go outside – shoes, and a coat – for purely practical reasons. But it has nothing to do with the company I’m in. For me, covering my hair might be something I’d do in a Muslim country in the spirit of adopting a cultural dress – wear it most of the time in public, to blend in and show that I’m respecting the norms; but this does not amount to veiling either.

Veiling is when a woman may be sitting chatting in the living room and her ears will be finely tuned to the sound of footsteps, ready to whip the scarf on if it’s her sister’s husband coming. Asking her little nephew to peek round the door and let her know if his dad is coming.

I totally respect the fact that some people believe it’s a sin to allow their hair to be seen by a non-mahram man, and would feel ashamed to expose it; but I don’t share their view. I asked my husband whether accidentally walking in on his sister-in-law with her hair uncovered made him see her differently, and he said not at all. I think those men that the sight of hair does have a big impact on, are men who live in conservative cultures with strict veiling and have thus been socialised to see hair as a private part of a woman. In other cultures, I feel that strictly veiling the hair would be fixing something that’s not broken, and would only make it broken in time.

Dressing modestly helps everyone to stay professional. But hiding from men, even familiar men, by rushing to cover one’s body completely whenever they’re coming – doesn’t this just condition the men from a young age to think that they can’t be trusted around women? And won’t they then just live up to that expectation?

I also feel it’s quite unfair that the men get to walk in without thinking about it, and it’s the women that have to be on their guard to cover at a moment’s notice. But then I suppose the next logical step from veiling is seclusion and segregation – it gets rid of this inconvenience. I believe a certain amount of gender segregation is natural, but to the extent it’s enforced in some countries, I think it is harmful. It teaches men that they need not have any self-restraint because the social structures in place will restrain them.

Most Muslims think veiling is Islamic. I am not sure whether Islam calls for veiling or just dressing modestly. It’s all in how strictly you interpret the instructions – do you take it to mean that revealing anything except face and hands to men is a sin and should be totally avoided, or do you take it as general guidelines for dressing modestly in public. I think there is a huge difference in terms of the effect on men.

Well, since going “full time” with the photography business I have felt like I have no time to “play” with my camera.  Well, I decided last night I was going to do just that.  After taking the kids out around the neighborhood to check out all of the holiday lights we decided to have a fire in the pit in our backyard.  For those of you that don’t know, we live in Florida.  This is not something we can normally enjoy here.  But, it has been in the 50’s and 60’s here, so it was WONDERFUL.

I took tons of pictures of the fire while playing with different shutter speeds to really see the differences that it makes to the photos.  It was so much fun.  My husband and I are the kind of people who “see” things in the fire pictures.  So, of course we found stuff in almost all of the images.  However, this image was our favorite…..

Post a comment here & tell me……do you see what I see????

A Nativity scene from the Christmas story. Matthew and Luke are the only gospel writers who tell us about Jesus' birth.

The Christian disciple continues to urge the first century Jew to accept their Messiah, starting with the first chapter of Matthew. The Jewish listener begins to respond to the alleged fulfillments.

Matthew 1: 22-23 says, “²²All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: ²³“The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”—which means, “God with us (NASB).”” Several comments and questions are in order here. First, Matthew’s prophecy about a “virgin” is suspicious because he seems to mistranslate the Hebrew word in question, “almah,” which means young woman. Some might respond by saying that Matthew was using the Septuagint, which has the Greek word “parthenos,” which can mean virgin. In response to this, the Jewish Study Bible says it best on page 798,

The Septuagint translates as “virgin,” leading ancient and medieval Christians to connect this verse with the New Testament figure of Mary. All modern scholars, however, agree that the Hebrew merely denotes a young woman of marriageable age, whether married or unmarried, whether a virgin or not.

What we learn from the immediate context is that this verse was not seen as a Messianic prophecy! This was a prophecy given to King Ahaz by Isaiah because he feared military defeat at the hands of the northern kingdom of Israel and the kingdom of Syria. This prophecy was given as a sign to Ahaz that they will not be defeated and the prophecy had to be fulfilled in Ahaz’s lifetime. We have nothing in Scripture (again the OT) that indicates this was intended to be a Messianic prophecy. Therefore, this seems to be a fabrication on the part of Matthew.

Let’s turn to the next prophecy in Matthew 2:5-6 which says,

“In Bethlehem in Judea,” they replied, “for this is what the prophet has written: ⁶” ‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will be the shepherd of my people Israel (NIV).’

The first thing to notice is that this verse is a quote from Micah 5:2 which says, ² “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times (NIV).”

Farrel Till is helpful here when he writes,

The “Bethlehem” in Micah 5:2, rather than being a town, was very likely intended as a reference to the head of a family clan. What many people who stand in awe of this alleged prophecy fulfillment don’t know is that a person named Bethlehem was an Old Testament character descended from Caleb through Hur, the firstborn son of Caleb’s second wife, Ephrathah (I Chron. 2:50-52; 4:4). Young’s Analytical Concordance, p. 92, identifies Bethlehem as this person in addition to its having been the name of two villages, one in Zebulun and the other in Judea.

An examination of the Micah 5:2 “prophecy” in context indicates that it was indeed a reference to the clan rather than the town: “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall come forth to Me the One to be Ruler in Israel.” The fact that the Bethlehem in this verse was described as “little among the thousands of Judah” casts serious doubt on Matthew’s application of the statement. In a region as small as Judah, one could hardly speak of a town as one of “thousands,” yet in terms of a Judean clan descended from Bethlehem of Ephrathah, it would have been an appropriate description for an obscure family group that hadn’t particularly distinguished itself in the nation’s history. The NIV translates that part of the verse like this: “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah….” Similar renditions are made by the RSV, NRSV, NAS, NAB, the Jerusalem Bible, and other translations, all agreeing that Micah referred to a family clan rather than a town.

Even more damaging to Matthew’s application of the verse is the Septuagint translation, the version that Matthew and other New Testament writers most often relied on when quoting OT “prophecies”:

And thou, Bethlehem, house of Ephrathah, art few in number to be reckoned among the thousands of Judah: yet out of thee shall one come forth to me, to be a ruler of Israel (Brenton Translation).

In his quest for prophecy fulfillments, Matthew most often quoted the Septuagint version of the alleged prophecy, but in this case, he obviously didn’t. “Bethlehem, house of Ephratha came out “Bethlehem, land of Judah.” The word house was often used in Hebrew to signify a family or a clan as in “the house of Judah” or “the house of David.” It was never used in the sense of “land” as Matthew applied it here. It would also be rather strange to call an insignificant village a “prince of Judah,” as Matthew did, yet not at all inappropriate to refer to the head of an undistinguished clan descended from Caleb as a prince. Notice also that the Septuagint described this Bethlehem, “house of Ephratha” as something that was “few in number,” another indication that a small clan was intended rather than a single town. So why, in this instance, did Matthew deviate from his habit of quoting the Septuagint and make the textual changes that are evident in his rendition of this verse?

I will have to stop here due to space restrictions and the risk of boring you. I hope this gives you a taste of how difficult it is to establish the truth of Jesus’ Messianic claims. As always, your comments are welcome.

When Jesus was born in Bethlehem, shepherds out in the field heard the announcement of “good news” and witnessed angels singing praises to God saying, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests” (Luke 2:14).

When we ask, did Jesus come to bring peace on earth, the answer appears to be obvious. However we need to be very careful here. Peace on earth doesn’t mean Jesus came to end to wars; nor does it mean Jesus is going to end world hunger.

Don’t get me wrong. I believe that the gospel will impact the world in such as way that wars, broken marriages, even world hunger and poverty will all one day cease.  If this optimistic picture of the future is true, we still have long ways to go (last time I checked, divorce rate just in the US was about 40-50%).

Notice that the angels don’t just say, “On earth peace.” They say, “On earth peace to men on his favor rests.”

In other words, peace pronounced here comes to those who are his favorites. Hold on a sec, God has favorites?! Yes. But it’s a kind of favoritism that doesn’t depend on us. God doesn’t show favor based on looks, class, race, gender, intelligence, rank or status. So it’s not the kind of favoritism you and I wickedly practice. Rather God’s favor is unmerited and unconditional. It is His gracious choice to choose a people for Himself. So then, peace comes to those whom God has chosen, not necessarily to everyone.

Furthermore, Jesus says elsewhere that he has not come to bring peace on earth. In the same gospel, Luke 12:51-53, we read Jesus saying this:

Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.

Again in Matthew 10:34, Jesus says: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”

So again, we ask, did Jesus come to bring peace on earth? Not that simple now, is it?

I believe the answer is this. The kind of peace Jesus came to bring is not primarily peace between people. Rather, the kind of peace Jesus came to bring is peace between God and man. How does he bring peace between God and man? He saves us and reconciles us. How does he save and reconcile us? By paying the penalty for our sins. How so? He came to die on the cross.

So implicit in praise given by the angels is the proclamation that Jesus was born as the Savior of his people who will suffer and die on the cross.

Can I briefly show you this from the Bible?

Again, when Jesus was born, the angels sang:

“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests.”

When Jesus entered Jerusalem to go to the cross, in Luke 19:38, people also praised him saying:

“Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord! Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!”

Note the striking parallels. In Matthew, “the crowds going ahead of Him, and those who followed, were shouting,
 ‘Hosanna to the Son of David; BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD; Hosanna in the highest!’ (Matthew 21:9).

Hosanna was the way the Jews gave praise to God. It literally means “Save!” or “Please Save!” It’s a praise to God which acknowledges him as the Savior. In one version, it is paraphrased as, “Horray for God in Heaven above!”

So then, Glory in the highest, Glory to God in the highest, and Hosanna in the highest, are all praises enriched with the understanding that God is the Savior-King.

Now when we compare Luke 19:38 praise with the angels’ praise in Luke 2:14 we should notice something else significant.

“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests.”

“Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord! Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!”

What is that? Peace in heaven as well? What does that mean? Obviously it doesn’t mean heaven needs to end hunger and poverty. Peace also implies that there is some sort of victory. Someone won and now there is peace. How? King Jesus went to the cross and he died. There upon the cross, where the sovereign Lord of heaven died, he defeated sin and death.

The apostle Paul says this in Colossians 1:19-20:

For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

This is the meaning of Christmas. No wonder the angels sang praises to God with these words, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests.”

Sorting out the post-exilic Israelite chronology has its difficulties. Modern biblical scholarship relies heavily on Persian material. The ESV Study Bible is probably typical in its outline. See table below (abridged).

The problem I have with this reconstruction (which I will refer to as the common reconstruction) is that it tries to meld the biblical data with the secular perspective of the Persian data. Reading Ezra-Nehemiah using this scheme makes less sense and constant reference to a study Bible is needed to understand when events are happening.

This is the list of Persian kings as they appear in the Bible.

The common reconstruction places Cyrus ~530 BC. The opposition described in Ezra 4:1–6 is during the time of Cyrus to Darius ~530–490 BC, so Ezra 4:7 onwards is proposed to be describing a similar situation, i.e. opposition, even though it is several years later. There is a single verse about the time of Ahasuerus ~480 BC then several verses dedicated to Artaxerxes who is placed later ~460 BC. This aside supposedly stops at Ezra 4:23 with the next sentence returning to the opposition under Darius. Effectively the text is interpreted thus,

Then the people of the land discouraged the people of Judah and made them afraid to build and bribed counselors against them to frustrate their purpose, all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius king of Persia. [Aside on Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes.] Then the work on the house of God that is in Jerusalem stopped, and it ceased until the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia.

After the discussion about rebuilding the temple under Darius ~520 BC the text moves to the return of Ezra under Artaxerxes ~460 BC (some 50–60 years later).

Then Nehemiah returns some 13 years after Ezra, also during the reign of Artaxerxes.

Having laid out the common reconstruction I would like to point out what I see are the deficiencies.

Probably the most obvious issue is the distortion of the narrative around the opposition to building. We read of opposition in Ezra 4:4–5 and instead of any explanation we get a diversion some 50 years into the future. When the story returns to the previous era there are no details about the opposition previously mentioned. Ezra does go on to talk about letters sent in the days of Darius but this does not appear to be so much external opposition as enquiry. The governor Tattenai does ask about the authority under whom the Jews were acting in rebuilding the temple, but he does not stop them, and then he asks Darius if the Jewish claim can be confirmed from the archives.

There is also a possible issue with the common reconstruction in that Artaxerxes opposes the building of the city, which includes the walls (Ezra 4:12), yet he sends Nehemiah back to repair the walls in the 20th year of his reign (Nehemiah 2:8). It is possible that Artaxerxes did change his mind, but this does give one pause.

Further, the context of Ezra 4:24 fits the preceding verse 23 better than the earlier verse 5. We have a letter of opposition from the surrounding people leading to a decree by Artaxerxes to stop building the city,…

Then, when the copy of King Artaxerxes’ letter was read before Rehum and Shimshai the scribe and their associates, they went in haste to the Jews at Jerusalem and by force and power made them cease. Then the work on the house of God that is in Jerusalem stopped, and it ceased until the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia. (Ezra 4:23–24)

If we read these verses together it says that the Jews were rebuilding the city and were compelled to stop, therefore the work on the temple also ceased. And there was no further building until the time of Darius.

Lastly, if one were not attempting to fit his prior ideas about the reigns of the Persian kings, would the common reconstruction come out of the book of Ezra?

In part 2 I will discuss a revision of this scheme.

This “born-in-a-manger” anagram was originally published 12/23/2008, but worth repeating here for seasonal interest.

What do you consider to be moral and immoral regarding human sexual relationships? Committed marriage, life partnership, temporary marriage, living together, dating, prostitution, casual sex, concubinage… what is OK and what isn’t? And what about divorce? When is it OK to divorce?

An extremely literal reading of the Quran can lead to the view that what makes sexual intercourse halal is the payment of a dowry (which can even be waived, and seems not to be required for right-hand possessions i.e. female captives) and the observance of a waiting period in-between partners in the case of women. The contracting and dissolution of marriage formalise the dowry and the waiting period. Since divorce is halal, it’s OK to set a time for it in advance. So in this letter-of-the-law view, there is nothing against a frequent change of partners, as long as the woman observes a waiting period in-between partners (the principle there being establishment of paternity for any pregnancy). Men are restricted to four “wives” at once, which may or may not include the right-hand possessions.

These, by the way, are not my own conclusions from the Quran, but those of someone I’ve been interacting with on a forum – someone who believes the Quran provides a universal code of conduct from God. I believe that not all Muslims will see it this way, and so I’m asking the question: for you, is there a principle of staying together for life, or is this type of thinking impractical and unnecessary?

There are traditions saying that temporary marriage was permitted. Its existence is certainly understandable in the context of a travelling caravan trader lifestyle. There may be one reference to it in the Quran – 4:24 contains the word

استمتعتم

which is derived from the same root as muta’ – the word commonly used for temporary marriage. It seems that its meaning is to do with pleasure, as that part of the verse can be translated like this: “So for the enjoyment/pleasure you have already had from them give them their dowry, as a duty.” (source) So it may not mean temporary marriage but it seems to portray something of that ilk.

Although it’s a cynical view of relationships, it may be somewhat realistic to say that the underlying phenomenon at the heart of all relationships is men giving materially in order to get sex. The thing that makes marriage special is that the woman gets to demand a very high price – dowry and material support, or committed fidelity, or whatever the cultural model is.

There are other verses describing the loving kindness between spouses and the duties of husbands towards wives and children in terms of material support. We also have a hadith saying divorce is disliked by God (although this didn’t seem to stop it happening for fairly superficial reasons – e.g. Zayd and Zaynab were divorced because she never liked the fact that he was a former slave). On the other hand we have a Surah entitled “Divorce” which begins with the words, “when you divorce women…” which perhaps shows that it is an expected occurrence.

As far as the Christian tradition, Jesus challenged this kind of letter-of-the-law understanding of marriage which was held by some Jews, and made it very clear marriage is more than just a contract for sexual pleasure: the two become one flesh and are joined by God; humans are meant to pair for life. What do you think – is this kind of idealism correct, incorrect, helpful, unhelpful…? A lot of Christians take Jesus’ teachings literally and believe divorce is never permissible unless there is infidelity. He never mentioned abuse, so abuse is not grounds for a divorce – yes, there are people that think that. I’ve seen a Christian fundamentalist on another blog advising the author to stay with her abusive husband and, I don’t know, pray for a miracle or something.

What kinds of arrangements do you think relationships should be based on? What is the best deal for women, and the best deal for men, and what is the best compromise between the two? Are we naturally suited to pairing for life? Are stable families best for children or is that a myth?

Randomly chosen text was only the beginning of this mind experiment. They knew how alien terrain would affect our daily pattern. You drew it out today to find it’s without rattle in Indiana…I wink.

The anagram shown in the yellow box comes from the text outlined in the collage in yellow.

Swift economic development world wide brings the globalization and internalization of economy. So the business communication between people from various countries becomes much more frequent than ever. However, language and cultural difference forms a tough hurdle for those who always need to participate in business conferences and events all over the world. Overcoming the problem or not becomes the key to any business success. As an integral cog in the wheel of cross cultural communication, language interpreter plays a vital role in smoothing away such difficulty.

A seasonal and professional interpreter’s expertise translating skills transfer essence from one language to another. They could ensure you a good beginning of a profitable trade or business relationship, laying the foundation for your future business success. On the contrary, bad interpreter easily leads to large amounts of lost money, the end of business transactions, even the termination of business relationship.

Finding your suited interpreting company or agency is not as easy as you imagine. Although the internet today is flooded with such kind of companies, agencies or talents, how do you know the degree of their interpretation professional level and their reliability?

I. Generally, a quality interpreter always has the following merits:

1. High interpreting efficiency. A professional interpreter needs to master both source language and target language. He/she usually specializes in one or more specific fields/topics, like science, medical, business contract and mechanic. And the capability of accurately, efficiently interpreting from one language to another is a must.

2. Excellent professional ethic. Interpreters usually unavoidably come across confidential company information. They should never use the information to harm clients, threaten company or earn personal profits. For the work beyond their capability, interpreting workers should not accept, even there is a large sum of money awaiting. Plus, these people shouldn’t over promise either your clients or you about something or delay their work.

3. Constant study enthusiasm. Oral translators need to be always ready to adapt to any change in this world for keeping and improving their capability. What’s more, they should be familiar with modern communication tools in order to do their job better and better.

II. When you opt for interpreting provider, you’d better choose:

1. A company or agency with strong reputation. Reputable company or agency could ensure you high standard interpretation, accurate results, on time delivery and great presentation. If you intend to choose China interpreting or translation services provider, Golden View is recommended. Built in 1996, they could offer language services in 60+ languages. Their clients include world famous Fortune 500 companies, like IBM, Google and Microsoft.

2. A company or agency with good translation or interpreting services. A good service provider needs to have abundant source of skilled professionals to tap, capable of offering you interpretation from individuals in any country’s mother tongue.

III. For a better interpreting efficiency, please note the following points:

1. Negotiate some rules with the interpreter beforehand, like the number of sentences translated at a time, confirmation of special phrases and some banned behaviors.

2. Deliver a general idea about the forthcoming interpretation to interpreter and prepare some important material that will be used in the interpreting for reference.

3. Treat them professionally.

4. Speak slowly. Interpreters are always under great mental pressure. Speaking slowly helps alleviate such pressure.

5. If you plan to give a presentation, speech, or alike, offer interpreter one copy. They will make you get your job done much better.

Early Christian art from the Roman Catacombs

Imagine being a Jew in the first century and a disciple of Jesus came to you with the “gospel.” The disciple opens by saying that we have all sinned and suffer from the effects of original sin. We are all incapable of doing anything pleasing to God and there is no way to atone for our sins. We are incapable of following the law, totally depraved, and utterly doomed without Jesus. The shedding of blood, death, and resurrection are all necessary for our salvation.

The Jewish listener would respond by saying that this “gospel” is false. Although it is true that all have sinned, it not true that we are totally depraved and can’t atone for our sins. Furthermore, the suggestion that we can’t follow the law is false as well. King Josiah walked in God’s ways, pleased, and did not deviate (II Kings 22:2). Abraham obeyed God and kept his statutes and commands (Gen. 26:5). Caleb followed God fully and because of his obedience, he received a promise from God (Num. 14:24).

Christian disciples seem to contradict the scriptures (Old Testament) by saying that it is too difficult, nay, impossible to obey the law. In Deuteronomy 30:11 God commands his people to keep his commands and statutes and then he says, “For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach (NASB).” In fact, the true God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob warned me (the Jewish person is still talking) about your god. God said in Deuteronomy 30: 17-18 “… if your heart turns away and you will not obey, but are drawn away and worship other gods and serve them, I declare to you today that you shall surely perish (NASB).”

I’m sure it will come as a surprise to you, but we don’t need a blood sacrifice to atone for our sins. I know that according to your Christian Bible in Hebrews 9:22 it says, “²²And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness (NASB)” but according to the true Bible this is not so. In fact, there were instances were sin were atoned for without a blood sacrifice. In Numbers 16: 42-50 it says,

⁴² But when the assembly gathered in opposition to Moses and Aaron and turned toward the Tent of Meeting, suddenly the cloud covered it and the glory of the LORD appeared. ⁴³ Then Moses and Aaron went to the front of the Tent of Meeting, ⁴⁴ and the LORD said to Moses, ⁴⁵ “Get away from this assembly so I can put an end to them at once.” And they fell facedown. ⁴⁶ Then Moses said to Aaron, “Take your censer and put incense in it, along with fire from the altar, and hurry to the assembly to make atonement for them. Wrath has come out from the LORD; the plague has started.” ⁴⁷ So Aaron did as Moses said, and ran into the midst of the assembly. The plague had already started among the people, but Aaron offered the incense and made atonement for them. ⁴⁸ He stood between the living and the dead, and the plague stopped. ⁴⁹ But 14,700 people died from the plague, in addition to those who had died because of Korah. ⁵⁰ Then Aaron returned to Moses at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, for the plague had stopped.

The key verses are 46 and 47 where Aaron, at the instruction of Moses, makes atonement and stopped the wrath of God with incense! We know that it worked because the plague ceased (verse 48). So Jesus’ first advent doesn’t seem necessary at all!

Today’s horoscope seemed appropriate: “This task only seems overwhelming. Break it into parts. You can do it”. Well, I already did it.  I originally started this blog with the name of the blog (Cosmicbubbles) different from my screen name (paperbubbles), which makes for some confusion now and then. So, I decided to start another blog earlier today but haven’t figured out how to use it yet, other than I posted one comics collage that can stand on its own, meaning it isn’t necessarily tied to something in daily life as a synchronistic connection. It was not a repeat for anything I posted here today. I changed the name of this one to Paperbubbles and the newer one will become cosmicbubbles, using that screen name as well. It confuses me, too, and I am not even sure I can keep things separate. Sometimes thinking just makes things worse.  We’ll see how things go. Meanwhile, here is today’s comics collage for this blog. There is an anagram worked into the collage as part of the “conversation”.  Just another experiment in blogging.