One of the best parts of having kids is getting to revisit iconic cartoons from my childhood.
One of little dude’s favorites is the Three Little Pigs Silly Symphony:
Good cartoons always have a little something for the watching adults. In this case, the source of amusement lies in the rather politically incorrect family photos.
Mom is what you might expect:
But here’s dad:
And dad again:
Dad for dinner, anyone?
You moderate enforcer and eulogizer of moderation. You are one of those bloody and deceitful people who affect modesty in words and appearance, but who meanwhile breathe out threats and blood. (Luther, “Against Latomus,” Luther’s Works, 32, p. 142)
That is how I was insulted by Luther today.
Indeed, there is a seemingly endless supply of Luther insults, ready to hand. All you need to is head on over to Lutheran Insulter.
If you think you can take it, go ahead and click “Insult me again.” Luther has plenty to unleash!
Enjoy.
(Note: this is for entertainment purposes only. Any other use of the site is strictly prohibited.)
So with this being the week of “If you can’t have the Bible you love, maybe you should try Loving the Bible you have,” as noted over at Unsettled Christianity, I thought that an apropos theme song for Bible lovers this winter might be the following from Stephen Stills:
As those of you who are attentive to my Facebook or Twitter feeds already know, a new word has entered the English language this week.
The word is peliculate.
peliculate. verb. intransitive. to watch a movie. (from the Spanish, película: movie)
Why introduce another word into the English language? Because we have no elegant verb for watching movies.
Consider, for example, the song lyric, “Won’t you Charleston with me?” Note how seamlessly we could sing, “Won’t you peliculate with me?” whereas, “Won’t you watch a movie with me,” is entirely too clunky.
And although movie revenue might be down, most of us still peliculate on a regular basis, and peliculation remains an important dynamic in current American culture.
So please, let’s adopt this neologism as a salutary addition to our vocabularies. I don’t know about you, but after a long week there’s little I like better than crashing with the wife for a little peliculation.
I want to tell you a little bit about how awesome I am. I’m usually not this direct, though many of you have suspected that this is how I see myself. Here are a few more things about my awesomeness you should know:
I have a circular saw. This means, of course, that I can build anything I want to. I can sit down and lay out plans for a tree house, buy the wood, fit the joints, and make the whole thing level, safe, and sturdy.
I have a baseball bat. This means, of course, that at any given moment I could jump onto the local softball team and become their ringer. Every time I step up to the plate I can get on base, and I usually get a hit. I have a bat, after all.
I also have an encyclopedia at my fingertips. This means, of course, that I know a little bit about almost everything in the world. I know about all the presidents, all the countries, and all the bacteria that cause diseases.
I also have a smart phone. This means, of course, that anytime I wanted to I could create a spaceship to put people on the moon. My EVO4G is more powerful than any mainframe they had way back in the ’60s. I’m amazing. I have power untold at my fingertips.
I also have access to Accordance and Bibleworks. This means, of course, that I know everything I need to know about the Greek language. I can translate and parse and investigate what words really mean. I can preach from the Greek and Hebrew. And I can probably write a grammar.
I’m so awesome because I have awesome tools. And once you have tools, what further need do you have for knowledge or skills?
James McGrath is more addicted to blogging than I am.
Created by OnePlusYou – Take your test here and get plugged into free online dating–what a deal…
(FYI: I did not go for the online dating part of this…)
The Top 50 Biblioblog rankings are out. It seems I’ve slipped a bit out of the Top 10.
I feel the urge to chastise you for this, because as an INTJ I know it can’t be my fault. The burden must fall to the shoulders of my readers. However, In the spirit of humility which I am attempting to cultivate, I will simply try to do better this month. I promise to try to post about sex, homosexuality, inerrancy, and women in the church at least 4 times per week. And thus, appeasing your thirst for controversy, I will regain what has been lost.
Starting tomorrow…
Of late we have been graced with several new Bible translations.
The NIV 2011 has updated the evangelical favorite, incorporating a number of changes that the now-defunct TNIV had made.
The Common English Bible (CEB) produced a new translation for what seems to be a mainline Christian crowd.
And just yesterday my attention was drawn to an even more recent translation project, directed toward those whose social location is defined, more or less, by the phrase “I can haz cheeseburger?”
Yes, the lol cats bible translation project, launched in 2007, has now borne fruit in the brand new LOL Cat Bible.
Having just learned of this yesterday, I haven’t had time to do a full perusal of the translational and theological impulses behind it.
It looks like they have gone with the subjective genitive rather consistently. Moreover, I find a disturbing amount of theological simplification–perhaps what one expects in a Bible directed toward grammatically incompetent felines.
Here’s Romans 3:21-26:
This certainly cuts the Gordian Knot of the text, but one wonders whether important nuance is lost in the broad language of expiation employed here.
Also, I note in my spot-checking that the gender-exclusive language of “brothers” is chosen, raising serious questions about how female cats and the cisgendered, androgynous, spayed, and neutered readers will respond to the text.
Similarly, the conservative theological impulses are reflected in Romans 16, where Phoebe is a “helper”, and the apostleship of Junia is buried beneath a reminiscence of past mischief.
In all, it seems that in terms of reaching a new people group, the translation is a success, but in terms of theological depth and hermeneutical sophistication, as well as other points of connecting with a contemporary audience, the translation leaves much to be desired.
