I'm in the middle of reading a Christian book - Rick Warren's 'Purpose Driven Life', and aside from the fact that it's overtly American (irritating, but copeable with) there is one thing that is driving me absolutely crackers about it.
He insists on using about 20 different Bible translations throughout the book, and changes from one quote to the next completely indiscriminately. According to him, the reason is that 'reading the bible in an unfamiliar version can cause us to re-consider and reappraise otherwise overly familiar words'. Well, maybe. This aim would still be acheived by just having one version throughout that is less familiar to most people than the ubiquitous NIV.
The major problem that I have with the way he uses different versions throughout is that it gives the appearance of picking the version that makes the point you want to make. Rather than genuinely getting to grips with (a faithful translation of) the original text. Consider it this way - if a non-christian friend of mine came to me, having picked 20 different bible verses from 20 different versions that showed the Bible to be inconsistent, full of lies, and not how I try to portray it - I'd just laugh at him and tell him not to be so daft. In fairness, none of my non-christian friends would even consider doing that as it would be daft to take so many verses and versions out of context. So if we wouldn't do it when trying to engage other people with our faith, why is it ok to do it when discipling to each other?
Thursday 29 March 2007
Monday 5 March 2007
An enjoyable afternoon and evening...
...was most certainly had yesterday. Ostensibly to celebrate Baron Scarpia's (and Simon's) Birthday, but generally just a good excuse to get a bunch of Uni mates out together to catch up.
As far as the Beer and pubs went - we started in the White Lion, Covent Garden (generally an easy place to meet) which is a perfectly reasonable central London pub (one of Nicholson's) which was serving Timothy Taylor Landlord and Spitfire when I got there. I had a pint of both, and both were being perfectly reasonably kept although nothing special - personally I prefer the Landlord - a distinct hoppy edge that takes away from the initial bitterness.
After waiting for a variety of people to turn up, and after a deviation to PizzaExpress for some carbohydrate intake, we went to the Lowlander, somewhere I've trying to get to for a while. They eventually cleared enough space for the 10 of us and we sat down to start on some interesting continental beers. Personally, I went for the Bellevue Kriek, reasonably common, but served on draught here and absolutely beautiful. My missus went for the Frulli Strawberry (rather predictable, she's not really a beer drinker) which was as sickly sweet as always. One of us went for the Russian Imperial Stout, but I didn't notice which Breweries offering it was - very tasty though, and a type I'll keep an increasing eye out for. However, tempting though it was to stay for more than one, the presence of a couple of students amongst us, along with those keeping a close eye on there wallets meant I was encouraged to find 'a nice cheap local with decent real ale' instead.
Well, given a task like that, the only solution I knew of in reasonably close proximity was going to be one of Sam Smith's London pubs - so off we wandered down to the Lyceum Tavern at the corner of Aldwych and the Strand. Great little boozer this, typical Sam Smiths offerings - I had the Old Brewery Bitter on draught, a tasty but fairly straight-forward session bitter being all I was up for at that stage in the evening. The wife went for the white lager - far superior to Hoogaarden in my opinion - a great example of the art. Particularly useful at the (getting increasingly) inebriated stage of the evening - a free dart board and a pub not sufficiently crowded to render it unusable - so 6 of us started a game of 'Killer' with increasingly hilarious (and eventually predictable) consequences.
All in all - a great afternoon and evening, really good to catch up with friends I hadn't seen in ages, and a couple of good pubs to be reminded of in the West End. Happy Drinking. ;-)
As far as the Beer and pubs went - we started in the White Lion, Covent Garden (generally an easy place to meet) which is a perfectly reasonable central London pub (one of Nicholson's) which was serving Timothy Taylor Landlord and Spitfire when I got there. I had a pint of both, and both were being perfectly reasonably kept although nothing special - personally I prefer the Landlord - a distinct hoppy edge that takes away from the initial bitterness.
After waiting for a variety of people to turn up, and after a deviation to PizzaExpress for some carbohydrate intake, we went to the Lowlander, somewhere I've trying to get to for a while. They eventually cleared enough space for the 10 of us and we sat down to start on some interesting continental beers. Personally, I went for the Bellevue Kriek, reasonably common, but served on draught here and absolutely beautiful. My missus went for the Frulli Strawberry (rather predictable, she's not really a beer drinker) which was as sickly sweet as always. One of us went for the Russian Imperial Stout, but I didn't notice which Breweries offering it was - very tasty though, and a type I'll keep an increasing eye out for. However, tempting though it was to stay for more than one, the presence of a couple of students amongst us, along with those keeping a close eye on there wallets meant I was encouraged to find 'a nice cheap local with decent real ale' instead.
Well, given a task like that, the only solution I knew of in reasonably close proximity was going to be one of Sam Smith's London pubs - so off we wandered down to the Lyceum Tavern at the corner of Aldwych and the Strand. Great little boozer this, typical Sam Smiths offerings - I had the Old Brewery Bitter on draught, a tasty but fairly straight-forward session bitter being all I was up for at that stage in the evening. The wife went for the white lager - far superior to Hoogaarden in my opinion - a great example of the art. Particularly useful at the (getting increasingly) inebriated stage of the evening - a free dart board and a pub not sufficiently crowded to render it unusable - so 6 of us started a game of 'Killer' with increasingly hilarious (and eventually predictable) consequences.
All in all - a great afternoon and evening, really good to catch up with friends I hadn't seen in ages, and a couple of good pubs to be reminded of in the West End. Happy Drinking. ;-)
Friday 2 March 2007
Venice - A couple of thoughts
The wife and I have just got back from 4 days in Venice. (Celebrating our 1st Wedding Anniversary as it happens). For those of you who know her and are really bored, the photos are on the wife's Facebook entry.
Venice got me thinking about a couple of things though - conservation of ancient things (why, how, should we, in what manner), and more generally what a city exists for.
We went just after 'Carnevale' had finished, and before the main summer tourist season, and so it was supposedly 'low' season for the tourists. Despite that, they appeared to be in the majority, certainly around the San Marco area, which seemed to me to be worse than Cambridge's King Street in Summer. Wandering around the city, and trying to get lost in various places I was astonished by the types of buildings we walked past. Every third retail space was either a restaurant or a hotel. At least every other third was a tourist shop of some kind (Carnevale masks, Glass retailer, etc.) Of the remaining third, I would estimate almost all are services to the existing population and tourists that would not be required if the city didn't exist (ie Banks, Post Office, Bars, Fashion shops, Hospital etc.)
So why does the city of Venice exist? If there was no city there, you certainly wouldn't consider building one in its location - but then that is true of a great many of the worlds great cities. The native population of the historic centre (the bit thought of as Venice proper) is a staggeringly small 62,000 - less than Stevenage, Gosport, Wellingborough, Barrow-in-Furness or Bolsover. (And incidentally, about a fifth of the population of New Orleans forced to leave due to Katrina that has relocated elsewhere on a permanent basis). Of those 62,000 a huge proportion would be out of work with no tourists. I came to the view that the city exists almost solely for the tourist trade that exists with it. Maybe a city can exist solely for the things that it has done in the past, for the architecture, geography, and history that caused it to be - but have since passed it by - but it feels, to me at least, very false. Beautiful undoubtedly, and fascinating geographically, with a host of artistic treasures to be admired and commended, but ultimately, above all the rest, false.
Venice got me thinking about a couple of things though - conservation of ancient things (why, how, should we, in what manner), and more generally what a city exists for.
We went just after 'Carnevale' had finished, and before the main summer tourist season, and so it was supposedly 'low' season for the tourists. Despite that, they appeared to be in the majority, certainly around the San Marco area, which seemed to me to be worse than Cambridge's King Street in Summer. Wandering around the city, and trying to get lost in various places I was astonished by the types of buildings we walked past. Every third retail space was either a restaurant or a hotel. At least every other third was a tourist shop of some kind (Carnevale masks, Glass retailer, etc.) Of the remaining third, I would estimate almost all are services to the existing population and tourists that would not be required if the city didn't exist (ie Banks, Post Office, Bars, Fashion shops, Hospital etc.)
So why does the city of Venice exist? If there was no city there, you certainly wouldn't consider building one in its location - but then that is true of a great many of the worlds great cities. The native population of the historic centre (the bit thought of as Venice proper) is a staggeringly small 62,000 - less than Stevenage, Gosport, Wellingborough, Barrow-in-Furness or Bolsover. (And incidentally, about a fifth of the population of New Orleans forced to leave due to Katrina that has relocated elsewhere on a permanent basis). Of those 62,000 a huge proportion would be out of work with no tourists. I came to the view that the city exists almost solely for the tourist trade that exists with it. Maybe a city can exist solely for the things that it has done in the past, for the architecture, geography, and history that caused it to be - but have since passed it by - but it feels, to me at least, very false. Beautiful undoubtedly, and fascinating geographically, with a host of artistic treasures to be admired and commended, but ultimately, above all the rest, false.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)