Thursday, 4 March 2021

Auto highlighting corresponding words in another bible

 

With the Logos Bible Software program, sometimes I'd like to select a word in ESV and then see the corresponding word in the Hebrew/Greek Bible highlighted too. 

This can be done by configuring the visual filters feature.

Corresponding words works within a bible, so you won't see anything unless the word repeats on the visible page. If this is what you want, 

  1. Open Logos
  2. Open two bibles
  3. Lay them side by side, if not already so
  4. Click the three dots arranged as a pyramid above each bible and check the Corresponding Words and Lemma boxes.

Corresponding selection works between bibles and ESV works with AFAT, BHW 4.18, BHS/WIVU (almost any Hebrew bible, as well as Greek bibles).  If this is what you want,

  1. Open Logos
  2. Open two bibles
  3. Lay them side by side, if not already so
  4. Click the three dots arranged as a pyramid above each bible and check the Corresponding Selection box.

Tuesday, 3 November 2020

Great comparative review between Logos Bible Software and Accordance

 

Accordance Screenshot

Logos Bible Software and Accordance are probably the two most pre-eminent bible study programs available on the market today.

These days, all bible software applications are really publishing platforms for literature with a set of integrated tools for studying, analyzing, and preparing your own reports, sermons, and notes.

Each platform provides a means to purchase literature for study, and over time the investment can accumulate and thousands of dollars can be spent building a library of resources.  

Like buying lenses and other peripherals for a camera system, the investment can economically lock the user into the platform.

Logos Screenshot

Therefore, if the investment has yet to be made and the choice is still available as to which platform to choose, and knowing that once the investment has been made, there will eventually come a point of no return, then the importance of deciding wisely which bible software program to use is stark.

Good news:  Here is a comparative review that looks in detail at the relative merits of the two programs. The web page provides a summary of the 30-plus page full review that can be downloaded as a pdf. 

For me, I'm in too deep to Logos to change now, but if you're only just starting out, then it's not too late for you.  No regrets from me as Logos is an excellent tool and all my family use it too, and the youngest is only ten years old.

Sunday, 18 October 2020

Assisted dying: The End of Life Choice Bill: The ultimate expression of rebellion against God

 


Ultimately the End of Life Choice Bill is about wanting the right to decide when an individual wants to die.  

It is a demand to have this right to be the master of one's destiny even at the expense of those who are vulnerable in society to being persuaded to end their own lives.

This demand for self-determination is the same that underlies those who are pro-abortion, renaming their position as pro-choice.  

Our society has come to value an individual's right to choose or the individual's right to refuse any external norm, above all else.

In the end, if we don't care about the rights of an unborn child, then why would we care about the rights of the vulnerable who can be influenced to mistakenly end their lives?

At its heart, the demand to choose one's own path to the exclusion of all other factors, is the motivation behind the rejection of God's sovereignty over one's life.  

And to reject God's sovereignty is to reject his commandment that it is one's duty to protect the vulnerable (see Psalm 82:4; Proverbs 24:11-12; Proverbs 31:8-9; Micah 6:8).


Wednesday, 7 October 2020

In all aspects of life, even in suffering there is meaning: A powerful argument against the End of Life Choice Bill


NZ is about to hold a referendum on an assisted suicide law.  It is intended to give those afraid of suffering from a terminal illness the right to choose to have their life terminated.  

Few would argue that the suffering of Auschwitz prisoners in WW2 was not extreme.  The death rate rose sharply between Christmas 1944 and New Years Day 1945 because those who had heard that the war was nearing an end, had hoped to be freed by that Christmas.  When it didn't happen, many lost hope and gave up.

Following that ghastly period, more suffering was to come, and if it were possible, morale was to fall even further.  Yet Frankl was able to impart a message of hope.

It had been a bad day. On parade, an announcement had been made about the many actions that would, from then on, be regarded as sabotage and therefore punishable by immediate death by hanging. Among these were crimes such as cutting small strips from our old blankets (in order to improvise ankle supports) and very minor “thefts.” A few days previously a semi-starved prisoner had broken into the potato store to steal a few pounds of potatoes. The theft had been discovered and some prisoners had recognized the “burglar.” When the camp authorities heard about it they ordered that the guilty man be given up to them or the whole camp would starve for a day. Naturally, the 2,500 men preferred to fast.

On the evening of this day of fasting, we lay in our earthen huts—in a very low mood. Very little was said and every word sounded irritable. Then, to make matters even worse, the light went out. Tempers reached their lowest ebb. But our senior block warden was a wise man. He improvised a little talk about all that was on our minds at that moment. He talked about the many comrades who had died in the last few days, either of sickness or of suicide. But he also mentioned what may have been the real reason for their deaths: giving up hope. He maintained that there should be some way of preventing possible future victims from reaching this extreme state. And it was to me that the warden pointed to give this advice.

God knows I was not in the mood to give psychological explanations or to preach any sermons—to offer my comrades a kind of medical care of their souls. I was cold and hungry, irritable and tired, but I had to make the effort and use this unique opportunity. Encouragement was now more necessary than ever.

So I began by mentioning the most trivial of comforts first. I said that even in this Europe in the sixth winter of the Second World War, our situation was not the most terrible we could think of. I said that each of us had to ask himself what irreplaceable losses he had suffered up to then. I speculated that for most of them these losses had really been few. Whoever was still alive had a reason for hope. Health, family, happiness, professional abilities, fortune, position in society —all these were things that could be achieved again or restored. After all, we still had all our bones intact. Whatever we had gone through could still be an asset to us in the future. And I quoted from Nietzsche: “Was mich nicht umbringt, macht mich stärker.” (That which does not kill me, makes me stronger.)

Then I spoke about the future. I said that to the impartial the future must seem hopeless. I agreed that each of us could guess for himself how small were his chances of survival. I told them that although there was still no typhus epidemic in the camp, I estimated my own chances at about one in twenty. But I also told them that, in spite of this, I had no intention of losing hope and giving up. For no man knew what the future would bring, much less the next hour. Even if we could not expect any sensational military events in the next few days, who knew better than we, with our experience of camps, how great chances sometimes opened up, quite suddenly, at least for the individual. For instance, one might be attached unexpectedly to a special group with exceptionally good working conditions—for this was the kind of thing which constituted the “luck” of the prisoner.

But I did not only talk of the future and the veil which was drawn over it. I also mentioned the past; all its joys, and how its light shone even in the present darkness. Again I quoted a poet—to avoid sounding like a preacher myself—who had written, “Was Du erlebst, kann keine Macht der Welt Dir rauben.” (What you have experienced, no power on earth can take from you.) Not only our experiences, but all we have done, whatever great thoughts we may have had, and all we have suffered, all this is not lost, though it is past; we have brought it into being. Having been is also a kind of being, and perhaps the surest kind.

Then I spoke of the many opportunities of giving life a meaning. I told my comrades (who lay motionless, although occasionally a sigh could be heard) that human life, under any circumstances, never ceases to have a meaning and that this infinite meaning of life includes suffering and dying, privation and death. I asked the poor creatures who listened to me attentively in the darkness of the hut to face up to the seriousness of our position. They must not lose hope but should keep their courage in the certainty that the hopelessness of our struggle did not detract from its dignity and its meaning. I said that someone looks down on each of us in difficult hours—a friend, a wife, somebody alive or dead, or a God—and he would not expect us to disappoint him. He would hope to find us suffering proudly—not miserably—knowing how to die.

And finally, I spoke of our sacrifice, which had meaning in every case. It was in the nature of this sacrifice that it should appear to be pointless in the normal world, the world of material success. But in reality, our sacrifice did have a meaning. Those of us who had any religious faith, I said frankly, could understand without difficulty. I told them of a comrade who on his arrival in the camp had tried to make a pact with Heaven that his suffering and death should save the human being he loved from a painful end. For this man, suffering and death were meaningful; his was a sacrifice of the deepest significance. He did not want to die for nothing. None of us wanted that.

The purpose of my words was to find a full meaning in our life, then and there, in that hut and in that practically hopeless situation. I saw that my efforts had been successful. When the electric bulb flared up again, I saw the miserable figures of my friends limping toward me to thank me with tears in their eyes. But I have to confess here that only too rarely had I the inner strength to make contact with my companions in suffering and that I must have missed many opportunities for doing so.

Frankl, V (2006).  Man's Search for Meaning. Beacon Press.


Monday, 15 June 2020

Black Lives Matter and History

John Hamilton's statue is removed after threats of vandalism

In New Zealand, the Black Lives Matter movement has led to demands that the statue of John Hamilton should be removed as it is an offense to some Maori.  Statues of Captain James Cook have been defaced.

John Hamilton was a British naval officer who fought in the New Zealand Wars.  He fell in the Battle of Gate Pa in April 1864.

Members of the Tainui tribe claim that those who took part in the Battle were murderers, not soldiers.

Historian Vincent O'Malley has suggested that local historical Maori figures were more worthy of memorial statues such as [Pōtatau] Te Wherowhero, Tāwhiao, Wiremu Tamihana, or Rewi Maniapoto.  

Ironically, some of these figures also fought on the opposing side in the New Zealand Wars.  Who is to say which side of the conflict should be memorialized?  

If one looks hard enough, one will find a moral fault or crime amongst nearly all of a society's historical figures when judged on present-day standards and perspectives.

Slavery is also caught up in the Black Lives Matters controversy because of its influence on African American history.  Slavery is an anathema in modern society.  Yet slavery was a normal part of Maori society in the 1800s and had been for hundreds of years.  

Slaves were subservient and treated as property.  Maori hired out their slaves as labour to the early settlers.  There are other aspects of Maori society that are even more inflammatory.

Ultimately, no one is faultless.  

Jesus said, he who is without sin, should cast the first stone (John 8:7).

There are two elements to solving this issue:  The first is racism.  The second is to achieve repentance, forgiveness, reconciliation, and peace.

False racist ideas between two people groups about each other can be dispelled through increased contact and leadership.  

Worldviews such as Social Darwinism can be countered through an understanding that God created all of humankind and He loves all of His creation (Genesis 1).  And all of humankind is called to follow His ways (Psalm 67).  

Dispelling false ideas is not enough.  Bringing healing through repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation is also necessary.

Any science fiction aficionado will know that First Contact between two societies is a fraught and risky process.  The chance of misunderstanding with potentially lethal consequences is high.

Ngati Oneone experienced first contact fatalities and are still aggrieved.  Captain James Cook suffered lethal first contact violence himself in Hawaii. 

Without forgiveness and reconciliation, the issue will continue to be a source of offense and growing animosity that will have unfortunate consequences for future generations.  

And why should we forgive?  Because God our Creator commands us to.  It is part of His 13 attributes to forgive iniquity and we are commanded to follow His ways (Exodus 34:7; Numbers 14:18).  

We must therefore also forgive iniquity.  Unless we do, whether we be Maori or Pakeha (non-Maori), there will never be lasting peace.

Black Lives Matter and Statues of Historical Figures

Police guard Churchill's statue from Black Lives Matter Protesters

Over the last few days, the Black Lives Matters movement has shifted its attention to the destruction, damage, or defacing of statues commemorating historical figures who had racist views. 

Statues of Edward Colston, Winston Churchill, and even Captain James Cook have been pulled down or defaced.

Protesters will find that each of these figures will have mixed backgrounds.  Those commemorated will have done much societal good which is why they were remembered at all.  

At the same time, they will be "guilty" of moral failures based on today's values, even though what they may have done in their time was the prevailing wisdom at the time.

A good example is Winston Churchill.  He is rightly lauded for his efforts in leading the UK to victory over the Axis powers and helping to save the world from Fascism.  

On the other hand, he believed in a hierarchy of ethnic groups, with Caucasians at the top.  But like all of humanity, he was a product of his time.  Ideas of Social Darwinism were widely held in Western societies from the late 1800s through into the middle of the 20th Century.  

Social Darwinism led to ideas such as eugenics.  Josef Mengele's evil was not inspired in a vacuum.

Should we judge Churchill based on present-day ideas and perspectives?  Yes, but we can only do so fairly if we keep in mind that his ideas were widely held in his day.  

Historians call evaluating historical events based on present-day attitudes and perspectives as "Presentism."

Some believe it should be avoided as it is a form of cultural bias.  

Others think "presentism" is a fallacy.

In my view, Presentism is unavoidable.  It's impossible to evaluate history without being biased by present-day values and worldviews.

And the conclusions drawn are not necessarily erroneous.  

So should all memory of Churchill, Colston, or Cook be censored?

No.  

The Bible itself gives us guidance about how to treat history.  

Many of its figures are not purely good nor exclusively evil.  

David was a "man after God's own heart," (1 Samuel 13:14) yet he was also an adulterer and murderer who brought much suffering upon his people (1 Samuel 11).

Yet the bible confidently portrays its historical figures as they are:  Warts along with beauty spots.

Why?  Because their examples provide both positive and negative examples for us all to learn.  

The bible's example shows that historical statues should not be hidden away.  

Instead, they should be in full view for all to see and study, so that humanity may benefit from both the positive and negative lessons that each provides.


Thursday, 28 May 2020

Misusing the Bible against Vaccination | Alan Dershowitz


While I disagree with Dersowitz's position on same-sex sexual relations, he makes some good points re the anti-vaxxer movement.

These are God's words, as recorded in Leviticus, Chapters 13 and 14. "The priest shall isolate" the contagious person for seven days and then an additional seven days if the contagion persists. "And he shall dwell alone; his dwelling shall be outside the camp." Nor was this quarantine voluntary. The priest could compel it.

Anti-vaxxers are free to cite science, philosophy, law— but do not miscite the Bible or God. It is irreligious and insults the intelligence of those who have actually studied the Bible by assuming, as many do, that the Bible opposes everything they oppose.

Invoking the Bible and God is intended not as a stimulus to further debate, but rather as an argument- stopper: God is against it; no further discussion, research or argument is necessary; the debate is over.