Clicking a link from the home page in Real Rhapsody today, I stumbled upon James Carr. The album is The Essential James Carr.

This man's voice exudes soul. The Rhapsody "mini-review" says it all:

Simply put: Carr has one of the most devastating deep soul voices of all time. He makes the line "just like the fish needs the ocean/just like rough hands need a little lotion" on "A Man Needs a Woman" sound like scripture, and his take on "Dark End of the Street" will turn you into dust. His music is totally essential.

You need to listen to this album if you have Real Rhapsody. If you look back fondly on the tune "Stand By Me" by Ben  E. King (before its horrible radio over-play when the movie of the same name was released), then you will enjoy this album.

Here's a short bio on James Carr. Sounds like a sad story. If you have Rhapsody, take some time and give the album a good listen.

Checking the NETS Provisional edition site again, I note the presence of a few books I hadn't seen yet:

• Tobit
• Proverbs
• Lamentations
• Susanna

Hop on over & grab 'em while they're hot.

I came across these in unrelated searching awhile back.

The Bibles Repository

Most interesting (to me, anyway) are the facsimile editions of Codices Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus.

Here is more information about the host, bibles.org.uk.

My friend and co-worker Jacob Carpenter just zapped me a link to Jack Johnson's new album, now on Rhapsody: In Between Dreams.

Sounds like typical Jack Johnson — which is awesome. Too often artists seem to get restless with their style and try all sorts of different things when they should stick with their bread and butter. With Jack Johnson, the style is easy, effortless acoustic groove with a laid-back surfer style. Anything by Jack is highly recommended.

If you're interested and don't have Rhapsody, here's Jack Johnson's web site.

I wrote the following short essay in long-hand on January 1, 2005.

I need to preface this by saying that it was written as a stream of consciousness, with very little stopping along the way. I'd only really worked out the first sentence or two before putting pen to paper. I realize I'm making large leaps in some places, but ... hey, you get what you pay for.

I've stewed on it off and on over the past few months and I'm still not sure what I think of it. I'd been reading about Erasmus and humanism, and thinking about how things had progressed from the Erasmian sense of humanism into the "secular humanism" of today. Particularly, I'd been considering the thought that secular humanism has essentially become a religion in its own right. I freely admit I'm rather separated from such things in my day-to-day context, and that some of my understanding of "secular humanism" is based on stereotypical (and thus perhaps erroneous) conceptions.

I've gone back and forth (and back, and forth, and back again) on whether I should post it, but I'm feeling bold right now, so here it is. Feel free to leave comments to tell me what you think.

Ok, that's enough with the disclaimers. On with the show.

Humanism as Religion

Self-determination, self-preservation and no self-condemnation combine to empower man. These convince him that he has no need of God. For when man is his own source of knowledge, his own source of power, and his own source of authority, he has truly replaced God.

Man needs God for atonement. Man needs God for redemption. Man needs God for salvation. When man has devised a system to provide these qualities, he has truly replaced God.

Man removes his need for atonement, redemption and salvation by removing sin from his nature. First man posits a "blank state" at birth; waiting to be filled. Next the humanistic doctrine of innate goodness convinces man that goodness and purity (the non-judgmental humanistic equivalents of atonement and redemption) are available inside of all with simple application of effort.

Man relies on science as the sole basis of knowledge. Man relies on his own posited "innate goodness" to provide moral guidance.

Man is doomed.

Man needs God. We will die without Him.

We have become too smart for our own good. We have forsaken faith in an effort to become omniscient on our own. We have dethroned God and replaced him with rationality. We have deduced our way down an erroneous chain of logic and ended up wholly corrupt.

In denying God and enthroning reason we have taken the ultimate final step. We have enshrined reason as a god and forsaken Christ.

Christians must persevere in these days. Faith is simply that: faith. Faith is not holding to obvious falsehoods in the light of overwhelming evidence; faith is being sure of what you hope for and certain of what you cannot see.

Humanism and its enshrined reason have betrayed this. These presuppose that all is rational and all is knowable; that through the application of reason and intellect man can do whatever he chooses. Thus there is no mystery. If a problem arises -- trivial or serious -- rational man believes he can address it adequately.

This is the sin of Adam and Eve.

We have come full circle.

Come, Lord Jesus. Come.

On the recommendation of a friend, I've been listening to music by an artist named Madeleine Peyroux.

It is bluesy/jazzy with a little bit of country tinge. However, the most remarkable thing is that Ms. Peyroux's voice reminds me of Billie Holiday and, to a degree, Ella Fitzgerald every time I hear it.

I couldn't listen to this all of the time, but it is a refreshing listen on occasion. If you have Real Rhapsody, there are links below to playlists for each of her available albums.

• Madeleine Peyroux: Dreamland
• Madeleine Peyroux: Careless Love

When I realized that I was out of coffee at home last week, I made a mental note to pick up some beans next time I was in the local Starbucks.

I was there on Saturday morning (as usual) and before I left I scanned the selection. I saw the label for Arabian Mocha Sanani, which I'd never tasted before. So I knew I had to have it.

It's early Sunday morning, and I just kind of woke up before my alarm for no explicable reason, so I went to the kitchen to make some coffee. All I can say is: Wow! I hope they have this stuff there again the next time I buy beans, because it is excellent. Dark, strong, black coffee. They didn't have much, though, so I'm not holding my breath.

If you see some and want to splurge, I highly recommend it.

As mentioned earlier, last week I devoured Part I of John Lee's History of New Testament Lexicography. Lee has some interesting and provocative observations, particularly concerning the development of the practice of glossing and the need of lexicographers to focus on providing solid, tested definitions. It is important that the information in these lexicons be sifted and made as accurate as possible, and Lee pinpoints the areas where the most work is needed.

However, after reading Part I of Lee's book (which I need to read again to better understand all that Lee discusses) I can't help but think that the primary problem between lexicography and the popular/common user of the lexicon is a bit of a paradox.

The user of the lexicon typically desires to know what a particular word means at a particular point (e.g., "What does αὐθεντέω mean in 1Ti 2.12?"); but the writer of the lexicon typically wants to transmit the meaning of the word in general, divorced from specific context. The purposes of the user (word meaning in a specific instance) and the purposes of the lexicographer (general meaning in a corpus or collection of corpora) don't quite line up.

The lexicographer pores over all sorts of citations, instances, studies and such to gain a general idea of the word and write a functional definition, as well as provide some well-intentioned glosses. But the probable user of the lexicon is most likely at a particular verse in the New Testament wanting to know what a particular word "means" — quite possibly because this user wants to know what "the Greek" (that strange, magical language) really says here.

The problem that lexicographers need to solve is how to provide responsible information to this sort of user while still actually doing lexicography (instead of translation or an 'amplified' translation). Definitions are one way, but we also need to do better in training folks how to use these resources and what to expect to gain from their usage. My guess is that much NT lexicon usage is that of a magical answer key. Poor glosses and inadequate definition complicate the issue, so they are problems that need to be addressed as John Lee rightly points out. But the problem of proper usage needs to be addressed as well.