John Cleese on Creativity

The Good Crisis

In the short run the crisis in Europe may be good for America and the value of the dollar. Why could this counter-intuitive result occur? While it is more tradition than reality, the US Dollar is perceived as a safe haven for troubled times. 

In Russia for example a lot of people keep their savings in dollars. On my first trip to that country several years ago, there were men who stood outside banks whose sole job was to exchange dollars for rubles, and visa versa, at a slightly better rate than you could get inside the bank. The government cracked down on these entrepreneurs and they are gone now.

But the desire to not rely on the ruble is deep seated. Oddly enough to compensate for this the rate you get for timed deposits in Russia is about 5%. This is highly competitive. If I was a currency speculator, the ruble would be on my short list of potential investments. 5% is pretty good in our current artificially low rate. Last time I checked the ruble was up versus the dollar. 

For a period the Euro was preferred to the dollar in Russia. But with the current troubles in Europe I bet this has changed and the dollar is riding high again. 

What I am saying is those that are predicting the demise of the dollar are premature by several years. As the old saving goes, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. America is that one eyed-man. But be careful as Obama has a sharp pointy stick. 

This video below disagrees with my suggestion that austerity is needed. I guess from Krugman's perspective I am an austerian, a play on words for the Austrian School of economics. 

What this video forgets is that government only has three sources of revenue. It can tax, driving money out of the economy. It can borrow, crowding out other borrowers. Or it can print money, potentially and eventually leading to inflation. None of these are good. Budget cutting needs to be a part of a total package. 

A Young Paul KrugmanKrugman is at least honest about what he wants: he wants inflation, he wants money printing. He wants to have his cake and eat it too. 

As Krugman's guru once famously said:

In the long run we are all dead. (Lord Maynard Keynes)

He was right about this. It is one of the few things he was correct about. Keynes is dead and we live in his long run. 

In the short run I expect the dollar to go up in value. But this cannot last. At some point if current trends continue investors will refuse to buy new government debt or roll over maturing debt. When this happens it will not be pretty. 

A Warning To Mockers

I thought this video was amusing. For those of you who do not know, Ronald Weinland is one of the two witnesses, so he says. He has predicted that Jesus will return today on Pentecost. (Technically he is predicting Saturday night at Jerusalem.) This was about 24 hours ago. Hopefully he was wrong. Just to be safe I have not mocked him untill now. I am writing this on Friday to automatically post on Sunday at 10 AM-so if the world ended yesterday please ignore this blog post.

Saturday 10 AM: Of course he was ready with an explanation. Apparently Weinland misinterpreted a word in Strong's concordance. Interesting that he came up with this so quickly, almost like he had an explanation ready. When you have a person like Weinland you are faced with four choices. He is a prophet, he is fake, he is self deceived, or he is crazy. The fact he had this plan B all ready tells us he is the the fake category. There is actually a significant chance of nuclear war next year, or its equivalent, when Israel bombs Iran's nuclear energy sites and it has a similar result as a nuclear weapon as it will spread radioactivity everywhere in Iran

Pentecost Message

Today I am posting a message I gave on Penetecost a few years ago. If you are wondering why I have not progressed more toward a podcast, the audio quality of this video is unfortunately representative of the way I sound. I am working on this and hope to start podcasting in July. 

Life Ain’t Easy for an Apostle Named Junia

If our interpretation of a scripture contradicts the history of the Bible, then I would conclude that that interpretation is wrong. This becomes useful in a number of areas. Today I will talk about 1 Corinthians 14.

³⁴ Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.

I have written on this before.

What historical documents am I referring to that disprove the idea that women could not speak in church? Romans 16 tells us of two people related to Paul:

7 Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was. 

This is the King James translation. Note that the King James decided to use the extremely rare Junias. Most modern translations say this:

Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.

The reason that the KJV used Junias is that it is a masculine name. The idea of a female apostle seemed almost blasphemy. The KJV used Erasmus’ Textus Receptus as the basis for their translation, which has this as a feminine name. The translators overruled Erasmus. 

(Note that the original manuscripts were written in all capital letters. It would not be possible to know if the common name Junia was used, or the rare name Junias because of the fact that the word is in the accusative case. When accent marks were added later to clarify the written word, accent marks that show this name was feminine were added.) 

Wikipedia talks about this issue: 

Only one record of the male name “Junias” has been discovered in extra-biblical Greek literature, which names him as the bishop of Apameia of Syria. Three clear occurrences of “Junia” have been found. While earlier searches for “Junias” in Latin also yielded no evidence, it is reported that “Junias” has been found as a Latin nickname or diminutive for the name “Junianas”, which was not uncommon both in Greek and Latin. While this is a possibility, historical studies on the name “Junia” as a contracted form of “Junianas” has shown there are over 250 citations of the name Junia in antiquity all of which have been found to refer to women, with not one single case proven to be the abbreviated form of Junianus to Junia. Meanwhile the name Junia is attested multiple times on inscriptions, tombstones and records; most notably, General Brutus’ half sister, Junia.

It is not impossible that the name here is masculine, but very unlikely. See the NIV:

⁷ Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.

One blogger put it this way:

Icon of Junia and AndronicusThe Feminine Theory --- Most biblical scholars are of the conviction, as am I, that the second named individual in verse 7 is a female. Junia, after all, was a very common feminine name at that time. “All early sources attest Junia as female, especially Jerome (340-420 A.D.) and John Chrysostom (345-407 A.D.). Although the name often appears in masculine forms in English translations, they are unattested in ancient times. Junia is the only woman called an ‘apostle’ in the NT” (Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, p. 756). Andronicus and Junia are believed by the vast majority of these biblical scholars to be yet another husband and wife team (like Priscilla and Aquila), or possibly a brother and sister team. “It is surely not at all impossible that St. Paul should include a woman among the apostles in the wider sense of accredited missionaries or messengers, a position to which their seniority in the faith may well have called this pair” (Dr. James Hastings, Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, vol. 1, p. 665). 

This is my view as well. She was a woman (note that the KJV knew what the Greek said and made her a man even though the man’s name Junias is rare). The implications of this passage for the KJV translators was such that they felt that Junia must have been a man, even though throughout history she was known to be a woman.

The same source continues:

The Greek word episemos means “eminent, prominent, distinguished, outstanding, renowned.” The word is used only twice in all the NT writings. The other occurrence is with reference to Barabbas (Matt. 27:16). Thus, Andronicus and Junia were a very prominent, distinguished couple -- but in what sense?! That is the central question. There are two major theories as to how best to interpret this statement:

 Modern Women?1. They were regarded as outstanding apostles. In other words, they were numbered “among” the apostles, and in that group had distinguished themselves in some way. The primary meaning of the Greek preposition en, which is employed in this phrase, is “within, among” (Dana & Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek NT). If indeed this preposition is given its most common meaning, then these two were quite likely of renown within the group of apostles in the early church. In other words, they were “outstanding apostles,” which is exactly how some versions of the Bible render this passage, and which was the view held by such renowned scholars and early church fathers as Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Martin Luther, John Calvin, to name just a few.

2. They were regarded favorably by the apostles. According to this view, Andronicus and Junia were not actually apostles, but were simply highly esteemed by those persons who were apostles. Although a few scholars do indeed advocate this position, it is most definitely the minority view, and is regarded as highly unlikely by most reputable Greek and biblical scholars. “To interpret the statement as meaning that these were outstanding in the estimation of the apostles scarcely does justice to the construction in the Greek” (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 10, p. 164). 

The view expounded by those insisting “the apostles” esteemed Junia is very unlikely in Greek grammar and one has to ask an interesting question.

What biases are causing them to advance it? We all have these biases. 

Apparently This Is Apple PandowdyBut let’s say that this second view above is right and Junia was highly regarded by the apostles. Was she so regarded for her apple pandowdy at church potlucks? I do not think so. Clearly she was a worker in the church. Also clearly she did things that many conservative churches would not allow. Until we allow women to do what the New Testament allows them to do we are not fitting within the Biblical patterns. It seems unlikely to me that an apostle had to sit meekly or walk three steps behind her husband. 

As one prominent evangelist in my religious tradition, and self-styled Apostle, might have put it, “Do not believe me, believe your Bible.”