English Standard Version: Best Bible Translation Ever?

Well, I cannot speak to that, since I have only read in a few (mostly English) translations. But I am pretty sure that it is one of the best English-language translations I have come across.

The ESV is an update of the 1952 Revised Standard Version (RSV). It is more literal than either the New International Version (NIV) or the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). It is much more readable than the New American Standard Bible (NASB) or the King James (Authorized) Version (KJV/AV). And (with the exception of the KJV) it is prettier, more dignified English than the lot of them. If Bible transaltions are weighed by readability, literal translation, and literary beauty then the ESV is probably the best that contemporary English affords at the moment.

John Piper, prominent evangelical preacher (and Calvinist), hopes that it becomes the standard Bible for the English-speaking world, and though I may disagree with Piper on some other things (i.e. Calvinist), I can whole-heartedly agree with him on that point.
http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/word_god/esv.html

read other endorsements here:
http://www.esv.org/about/endorsements

Check out the ESV website at which you can read the text, look at translation comparisons, purchase a new Bible, or learn more about it: http://www.esv.org/

Bethlehem sees more Pilgrims

About 30,000 people converged on the little town of Bethlehem this year to celebrate Christmas in the city that is the birthplace of Jesus Christ. This figure is roughly twice that of last year and the most since the outbreak of the current Israeli-Palestinian violence in September of 2000.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179708,00.html

There had been concerns about safety after a group of armed gunmen captured Bethlehem's City Hall just days before Christmas, but later left the area, hurting no one.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10542632

Concern about Iran and Israel

Today we read that, in another overtly anti-Semitic public statement, Iranian President Ahmadinejad has (after the manner of a neo-Nazi) called the Holocaust a myth claiming (presumably on no evidence at all, but for ideological reasons) that it never happened. Ahmadinejad's remarks have incited yet another wave of international criticism, but as yet, no action.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051214/ts_nm/iran_holocaust_dc

Now as I read that story, it called to mind another that made the headlines just a few weeks ago when Iran's hardline president said that Israel should be "wiped off the map." Remember that?
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20051026-0711-iran-israel.html

Now of course, this sort of radical rhetoric, unhelpful as it may be, may all still be just chest thumping on the part of the (Shi'ite) Islamic Theocracy (Iran) who has more fully implemented "shariah" (Divine law) than any other Muslim country. But then, as I thought a little more, I remembered two other recent headlines that have been focused on Iran. One was just a few days ago: Russia sells an advanced anti-aircraft missile system to Iran.

Why Russia is allied to Iran, while other places like Afghanistan hate Russia, why Russia is building a nuclear reactor on Iranian soil, and why Russia is selling her advanced weaponry to Iran (more advanced than our own anti-aircraft systems, since our own new weapons development slowed down so much during the 90's) are all beyond my comprehension. But they are. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051202/ap_on_re_eu/russia_iran_arms_1

And we all know about the international concern that Iran is actively seeking nuclear weapons.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,430649,00.html

In other words, we may very soon (or already?) have an explicitly anti-Semitic Islamic Theocracy with nuclear weapons and mid-range delivery technology "just across the way" from Israel. This should be more than a little bit troubling, even for those of us who are not "blind supporters" of whatever Israel does.

It should also be remembered that Israel's military is nearly as advanced as our own (since we sold it to them) and is both experienced and effiicient. And of course, they too are rumored to have nuclear weapons. I think we should also keep in mind that Isreal, not so long ago, has shown a willingness to engage in pre-emptive attacks (and with great effectiveness) when they feel greatly threatened (does anyone remember "The Six-Day War"?).

I wonder just what would happen if Israel confirmed that this hostile regime in Iran was indeed poised to strike with nuclear weapons? Would a pre-emptive strike (even a nuclear strike) be on the table? What would happen if Israel decided to launch it? I suspect that Iran would be unprepared and pretty much decimated. But then, I wonder what the other (mostly Sunni Muslim) Middle Eastern nations in the area would do? How would they respond? It is a pretty scary situation that is developing right now.

University of Kansas class on Creationism, Intelligent Design cancelled

It is well known that Kansas has approved public school curriculum allowing teachers to teach both traditional Darwinism and Intelligent Design theory together.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,174957,00.html

This decision has drawn a hail of criticism from elements within academia. So the University of Kansas professors decided to offer a class debunking Creationism and Intelligent design as a “myth” (I should point out that this is a loaded term, and I am uncertain in what sense it was intended, but I suspect I may hazzard a good guess).

In any case, this class has been cancelled after the professor sent an email mocking "Christian fundamentalists" (another loaded term) and rejoicing in how this class was going to "slap them in the face".

Click here for the story:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,177354,00.html

So THIS is our academic establishment at work? Only the objective facts and no ideology in here? Or not.

Now it may be that this class was going to be an honest appraisal of all the available evidence from the relevant fields of study and that the students would then be encouraged to come to thier own conclusion without simply being indoctrinated with the views of the professor. Or perhaps not.

I just want to point out that it is POSSIBLE that there may be more to this resistance to ID in (some sectors) of academia than simply concern for objective truth. There may be some more subjective motivations.