Logocentric (adj).Regarding words and language as a fundamental expression of an external reality (especially applied as a negative term to traditional Western thought by postmodernist critics).
Sometimes I just write whatever I feel like. Other times I respond to prompts, many taken from the following places:
I have always enjoyed the longer distance running and skiing. The Marathon in Summer Olympics and the 50km Mass Start in the Winter. My wife can't understand how I can watch the same race for several hours. But they are fascinating to me. I like the Downhill Slalom, Bobsled and Luge sports. Attending a Winter Olympics remains on my bucket list.
My favorite sporting events in the Winter Olympics are the Luge, Bobsled, Figure Skating and curling. Initially, I thought I would be bored with curling but I'm not. It's fascinating how they determine each glide's angle and potential score.
When my children were younger we built them a luge course, they loved it. We were lucky that winter to have lots of snow to build up the walls and with some help with pallets that we covered with snow, it kept them and the neighborhood kids busy until it warmed up and melted. I was a lot more at ease with the luge course than I was when they decided to try arial jumps off our house roof. Never a dull moment when you live in Maine.
I am reading ESV through the Bible this time. Like you, I've explored a bunch of translations. My church uses NIV but my women's Bible study group (part of the same church) varies based on what Bible study we're doing.
Hope you enjoy the Olympics! I agree that the every four year thing makes them feel more special.
I read the New American Bible, which is a Catholic Bible. (NABRE) They include Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, which generally aren't included in other versions of the Bible. I would be curious to read an orthodox bible or the Ethiopian Bible as I hear they have differences as well.
As for the Olympics, I love the Winter Olympics. I'm just crossing my fingers I have time to watch!
In terms of the original texts the NASB has the best reputation among conservative scholars. It looks at more translations, has a sensible hierarchy of text selection and the best principles for approaching the translation task. It favors original texts when possible. The ESV and NKJV are on a similar level. The Net Bible gives the best overview of the discussions in its commentary. The NIV renders the original text to make it more readable. It is a more functional text which is why many churches use it but it is also less precise. Greek or Russian orthodox are more Septuagint orientated and there is a considerable amount of ethical or emotional rendering to the text.The disadvantage of the NASB is that it loses much of the Hebrew poetical style in its effort to be precise as this does not translate into the English
I'm very fortunate to have met some practicing and humble Christians. Truly humble people seek to serve, not attain power and influence. The actions of many Christians make me run the opposite way... as fast as I can.
In his book, Sit, Walk, Stand, Watchman Nee states: "Nothing has done greater damage to our Christian testimony than our trying to be right and demanding right of others. We become preoccupied with what is and what is not right. We ask ourselves,' Have we been justly or unjustly treated?' and we think thus to vindicate our actions. But that is not our standard. The whole question for us is one of crossbearing".
Jeff, this is an excellent book. Perhaps one for your reading list?
I shouldn't take as much glee in this as I actually do, but the fact that Sean Spicer's book release isn't going quite according to plan is something that I'm following with a not insignificant amount of pleasure. Sean Spicer was, once upon a time, a respected communications director and chief strategist for the Republication National Committee turned White House Press Secretary and White House Communications Director for the Trump Administration. You may remember him from such memorable appearances at the lectern as when he defended Trump's demonstrably false claim that his Inauguration Day crowd size was the largest in history, and that time (during Passover, no less) where he asserted that the Assad regime in Syria is way worse than the Nazis because Hitler didn't use chemical weapons. You may have even seen Melissa McCarthy do a memorable impression of him on Saturday Night Live (more than once).
And here's the thing about Sean Spicer... he was one of the architects of - or at least a willing participant in - the early days of couching this administration's downright lies and falsehoods as "alternative facts" or "the President's opinions" even when they're contradicted by actual evidence. He was literally an active contributor to the current war on truth and positioning the administration so they're at war with the media whenever the media dares to question the lies they tell. So I'm not too keen on him getting off scot-free, trying to tear down norms and institutions for personal gain and then, say, making a guest appearance at the Emmys, doing the talk show circuit and teasing how much dirt he has on the administration that we'd all surely like to know... and now trying to profit off a book tour. The number of people who are trying to profit off their government service in this administration is really gross, and Spicer's one of the worst because he freakin' knows better, but chose to sell out in his own personal pursuit of money and power.
So it's with great satisfaction that I read Jonathan Karl's review of Spicer's book for the Wall Street Journal, which really isn't afraid to pull any punches and includes zingers like, "Mr. Spicer's book is much like his tenure as press secretary: short, littered with inaccuracies and offering up one consistent theme: Mr. Trump can do no wrong." It's also pointed out that Spicer frequently uses odd metaphors for Trump, including calling him a rock star, an inflatable ball in a swimming pool, the Energizer Bunny, and a unicorn on a high wire. (WTF? )
But the most savage paragraph (and one that Spicer brought upon himself) is the one that points out just how poorly written and edited the book itself is, which I will quote for you here in its entirety because it is truly remarkable, coming from someone who so desperately wants to be seen as an intelligent, savvy Washington power player:
Mr. Spicer has not been well served by the book’s fact checkers and copy editors. He refers to the author of the infamous Trump dossier as "Michael Steele," who is in truth the former chairman of the Republican National Committee, not the British ex-spy Christopher Steele. He recounts a reporter asking Mr. Obama a question at a White House press conference in 1999, a decade before Mr. Obama was elected. There are also some omissions: He writes about working for Rep. Mark Foley (R., Fla.), who he says "knew how to manage the news cycle. And on top of all that, he was good to staff and fun to be around." He never gets around to mentioning that Mr. Foley later resigned in disgrace for sending sexually explicit messages to teenage boys working as congressional pages.
Yikes.
But then again, is it any surprise that, in an administration full of incompetent people shamelessly trying to profit off of their access to the presidency, some of them completely half-ass their attempts to do it? Then again, like Michael Wolff's book which was similarly sensationalist and slightly less poorly edited, I'm sure this will be a bestseller and make Spicer a bunch of money regardless of how pathetic it is.
You may have even seen Melissa McCarthy do a memorable impression of him on Saturday Night Live (more than once).
)
Comment 
