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?
It's amazing to me how the Trump Administration seems to be on the wrong side of history in just about every action they take. Pulling out of the Paris climate accords, supporting tax breaks for billionaires and voter suppression, doubling down on old criminal justice policies that have been proven ineffective, removing protections for nature preserves and refusing to enforce consumer protections and banking statutes designed to make sure the market recession from ten years ago doesn't repeat itself, starting trade war which will end up costing us all more in the long run... I know I'm pretty liberal in my views and there are obviously people who support some (or even all) of this agenda, but I truly believe he's setting us back years or even decades in so many ways.
This article is about the Trump Administration trying to roll back fuel standards. The current goal is to reach an average of 54.5 miles per gallon (MPG) fleet-wide by 2025. This number is in large part set by California, which encourages very ambitious fuel standards that the car companies usually try to comply with because California is such a large car market. Other states have other standards, but that leaves car companies with the choice of making different vehicles for different state markets, or trying to comply with the highest standards and selling to all the states.
When Trump won the election, the car companies went to him expecting a sympathetic ear. They told him that 54.5 MPG was just too much and that maybe there was some way to give them a little bit of a break? In true Trump fashion, he's not just trying to adjust the numbers, he'd rather throw out the entire Obama plan (because his whole M.O. seems little more than "do the opposite of what Obama did no matter how little sense it makes") and basically make it so that the car companies don't have to make any efforts to create cleaner running, more fuel efficient vehicles.
What really galls me about this are three things. First, Republicans are supposed to be the party of pro business, pro capitalism, etc. So in theory they should want competitive car companies who are always striving to create newer, better, and more desirable vehicles (and make no mistake, fuel efficiency is a major area of concern for car buyers)... but they support a policy that encourages these companies to be as noncompetitive as possible? Second, it's clearly the wrong thing for the environment. We all know cars and our reliance the larger issue of our reliance on fossil fuels is not good for the planet... but they support a policy that encourages these companies to not make more environmentally-friendly cars? And third, Republicans are supposed to be all for states' rights over the federal government stepping in and telling the states how to conduct their business. Apparently except when it's a law they don't like. They're all for states' rights when it comes to restrictive abortion laws or unrestricted gun laws... but when a state wants to set its own fuel standards? Time for the government to step in and tell the states they can't make their own rules.
To paraphrase this article, it said that the car companies initially asked the Trump Administration to revisit the standards to "get more flexibility in meeting these aggressive goals," but that the White House instead opted to go so far in that direction that they're actually at risk of hurting the companies more than helping them. A Ford spokesperson explicitly said, "We're not asking for a complete rollback" but that's exactly what the Trump Administration is doing, which could potentially create different fuel standards for different states and would create a regulatory nightmare. In the words of Dan Becker, director of the Safe Climate Campaign at the nonprofit Center for Auto Safety, "What they didn't know is, when they asked Trump to help them start rolling these standards down the hill, that he would totally disconnect the brakes."
Which, I suppose, is ultimately the lesson of making a deal with the devil... the devil in this case being an inexperienced administration with its only guiding principle being to completely tear down any and every bit of progress made in the last eight years. Whether we're talking about international relations like the Iran nuclear deal and trade, or national policies like immigration and reshaping the judiciary, when we elect a "change" candidate (especially one who doesn't feel the least bit constrained by tradition, civility, or bipartisanship), sometimes that's exactly what we get, and it's way more than we bargained for.
Comment • View 1 comment 
