Lagoons — They’re Full of … Dirty Water

In our case, gray water.  One of the wonderful things I bought when I moved to Nebraska was a dysfunctional wastewater plan.  The septic system carries the really bad water (“blackwater”) out through the septic tank, but there is no leach field.  The septic tank just has a straight pipe that runs out over the ground 200′ south of the house.

The graywater system for the house (graywater is all wastewater that isn’t blackwater) just ran out through a pipe to a ditch along the side of the road.  The ditch is fine for graywater, but that isn’t exactly legal.  I wasn’t too happy about the graywater system, and was happy that the two systems were handled separately — it gave me the option of recycling the graywater at some time in the future.

So we were digging out this addition to my house, and we knew we would hit the graywater line, because we knew it was down there.  We found it, but it smelled foul.

DSC_0964

DSC_0966

A house’s wastewater line is supposed to use gravity in order to move its contents from one place to another.  What we found here is evidence that gravity is not working for us.  Rather, we have at least a section of this pipe that isn’t falling.  The filth from the graywater is accumulating in this section of pipe and you can see how it is taking up at least 30% of the pipe’s size.  When it was still in the ground, it was closer to 50%.

So, I made the executive decision to put in a lagoon.  A lagoon is a legitimate way to handle wastewater in Nebraska and is relatively inexpensive (relative to a septic tank and leach field).  It is basically an open pond that wastewater drains into and nature does its job of decomposing the various nasties.

DSC_0963

This is my new drain line as it exits the house.  The old drain pipe was too high to start, so Gary had this new pipe drop down several inches before it starts its run towards freedom, er, I mean, the lagoon.

DSC_0969

The pipe is now running further away from the house.  Just for perspective, the 2×4 laying on the ground is a 12′ board, so the end of that board is where the wall for the addition will be.

DSC_0971

You can see the lagoon now (this picture was taken from atop that mountain of dirt we created).

DSC_0973

The goats are really enjoying lounging and watching the big machines.  I would have figured them to run and hide.

DSC_0974

Here is Gary working (talking on the phone) while Randall digs.  Really though, what a great crew of guys those three were.

DSC_0977

Same caption as last one, only different angle.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Homebuilding

Digging It

Digging finally began!  Only 8 weeks behind (my) schedule, but it has finally begun!  On Thursday, August 27, a traxcavator and backhoe started tearing up my yard to the East and South of the house.  On Tuesday the backhoe was dropped off and on Wednesday, Gary Kuhl showed up to use a demolition saw to cut the concrete to the Southwest of the house.  So we knew it was coming.  But the fun really started on Thursday as Gary & Don started moving dirt.  What fun it was, too.

DSC_0910

Above, you can see Don preparing to work with the traxcavator.

DSC_0911

I guess a ‘before’ picture would be nice.  It won’t look like this ever again…

DSC_0917

This is Gary removing the cement on the South side of the house.

DSC_0920

And Don starting to dig out the new driveway.

DSC_0924

At the end of day one, still some more digging to go.

DSC_0930

But obviously they moved tons of dirt on that first day.  We are just so happy to finally have started.

Leave a comment

Filed under Homebuilding

Addition Work Begins With Demolition

So here is a post I started 7+ weeks ago.  For those who don’t know, my parents have been on the mission field in Ukraine for the past several years.  They sold their house in Delaware and have been planning on moving in with us here on the farm when they return from Ukraine.

It is now time for them to return.  My parents leave Ukraine on September 1 and should be to my house by October 1, so we had a plan to begin adding on to the house right after July 4 so that the addition would at least be dried-in by the time they get here.

Following are pictures from the beginning of the addition work.

Leave a comment

Filed under Homebuilding

A Response to a Comment

Last week, a very kind reader left a comment on my blog that included a lengthy article written by Dr. Peter Hammond, a missionary from South Africa with a very impressive resume and list of accomplishments.  I would love to meet Dr. Hammond some day.  Following is my response to the comment, which is really a response to Dr. Hammond’s article:

Thank you so much for responding to my blog post.  I have only ever wanted to engage others in conversation.  Dr. Hammond’s article that you sent had a lot of information, and obviously Dr. Hammond has thought a lot about how he feels about these issues of self-defense and gun control.  I’m not sure why you were saddened by what you read on my blog, although I assume you were saddened that I was so misled as to abandon my jobs in the name of Jesus when obviously I didn’t understand what the Bible has to say about the topic.

I would like, in all humility, to tell you how I respond to the article you sent.  Again, I thank you for sending the article.  And I pray that my response is helpful to you, if you will entertain it.

In the first section, Dr. Hammond relates how his older brother was attacked at his home in South Africa and his older brother was able to fend off the attackers with a combination of his pistol, quick & accurate shooting, and the LORD’s protection.

What a story!  It is so exciting and captivating that it really gets my blood flowing and has me on edge until the end.  I have a lot of thoughts after reading it:  (1) is it possible that the LORD protected Derek & his family in spite of his violence?  (2) is it possible that Satan protected Derek & his family as a reward for his violence?  And to continue to confuse modern Christians about the use of violence?  (3) what are the most effective weapons that Christians have at their disposal?  The article itself later says:  “the primary weapons of missionaries are the Bible, prayer, faith and persuasion.”  I would say the most effective weapons are prayer, faith, and love.  Could these three weapons have been used by God?

Dr. Hammond closes this section of the article by quoting Oliver Cromwell as saying, “trust in God and keep your powder dry.”  I don’t know enough about Oliver Cromwell to speak intelligently about him, but allow me to ask another rhetorical question:  Are you trusting in God if you are also trusting in your own abilities to keep your powder dry and deliver quick & accurate shooting?  God is glorified when we reach the end of ourselves and rely on him for miraculous deliverance.

Dr. Hammond’s article next goes into a section entitled, “Self Defence in the Law of God,” saying the Law of God is clear.  I agree that the Law, under the old covenant, was clear.  The Law allowed a homeowner to strike a thief and kill him, leaving the homeowner guiltless of the bloodshed.  Exodus 22:2.

Next, though, Dr. Hammond quotes our Lord Jesus Christ saying, “He who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.”  Luke 22:36.  But let us look at the context of that statement.  Jesus was speaking to his disciples.  Jesus was about to be arrested by an angry mob.  Jesus was soon to be crucified by the Roman empire.  And the disciples would be persecuted by the Jewish leaders who arrested Jesus and the Roman empire that crucified him.  The disciples were about to be set-upon on all sides.  In this context, Jesus tells the disciples to buy swords.  And it would seem Dr. Hammond’s point is proven.  But then, in verse 38, the disciples respond, “Lord, look, here are two swords.”  And Jesus responds, “It is enough.”

There are at least two ways to interpret Jesus’ response.  The problem with the written word is that we don’t get body language and voice inflection.  Was Jesus saying, in effect, two swords will be enough for you to protect yourself from the persecution you are about to face?  Or was Jesus saying, that is enough talking about matters of this world when you are on the brink of the most important event in all history?

Two more points:  in verses 48-51, this is what happened:  “But Jesus said to him, ‘Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?’  When those around Him saw what was going to happen, they said to Him, ‘Lord, shall we strike with the sword?’  And one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear.  But Jesus answered and said, ‘Permit even this.’  And He touched his ear and healed him.”  So here the disciples ask if they can strike with the sword that Jesus had just told them to buy.  What do you suppose Jesus’ answer would have been, if the disciple had given Jesus time to answer?  Rather than encouraging the use of the sword, Jesus heals.

Last point:  In John 18:36, Jesus says to Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world.  If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews;  but now My kingdom is not from here.”

If there was ever an instance where it would be appropriate to use violence, the protection of your lord would seem to be it.

But look at the way the early church acted after receiving the Holy Spirit.  Particularly, look at the martyrdom of Stephen (Acts 6-7).  Why did the Christians not rise up in defense of Stephen to prevent his martyrdom?  There is not a single account under the new covenant, after the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, of a follower of The Way striking out with a sword, or any other weapon, or a rock, or even a fist.

Dr. Hammond continues by quoting I Timothy 5:8, but expands the verse to say something the verse does not say.  I agree that fathers and husbands are required by Almighty God to provide for their families.  “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the Faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”  1 Timothy 5:8.  I agree that this includes providing food, housing, clothing, education, medical care, love, discipleship and spiritual guidance.  But where does it say that I must kill another man to protect my children.  Is that other man’s soul less precious to God than my son’s physical well being?  If Christians had killed those who killed Stephen, they would have killed Saul, who became the apostle Paul.

I guess I should go back to what the Law says about killing another human.  Are we still under the Law?  Or do we have a higher calling?  Paul says, “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.  I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.”  Galatians 2:20-21.  Paul also says we are to sacrifice our bodies.  Romans 12:1.  We no longer live.  And our ministry is a ministry of reconciliation.  2 Corinthians 5:18.

The author of Hebrews likewise states, “For you have not comes to the mountain that may be touched and that burned with fire [the mountain of the Law, Mount Sinai]…But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels,”  Hebrews 12:18-22.

Faith and Firearms

In the next section, Dr. Hammond lists many missionaries who carried weapons.  Dr. Hammond seems to confuse defense against animals and defense from other humans.  All I can say is that even the best and most devoted of missionaries can allow selfishness to cloud their judgment.  The selfishness of self-preservation.  The scariest passage in the Bible might be Matthew 7:21-23:  “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.  Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name? And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you, depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’”

It is amazing that Dr. Hammond cites Mark 7:21-23.  I couldn’t agree more!  “For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness.  All these evil things come from within and defile a man.”

Dr. Hammond then proceeds to cite to what he calls, “historic Christian teaching” – the 39 Articles of the Church of England and the Westminster Catechism.  Authoritative historic Christian teaching would come from Christian teaching before the conversion of Constantine.  There is NO historic record of any Christian serving in a military until the close of the second century.  It was not until Constantine’s conversion in the late fourth century that Christians were told by their leaders it was okay to join the military because their leader was Christian, therefore they were fighting for a Christian empire.  But Jesus told us His kingdom is not of this world.  And Satan is the prince of this world.  And although all civil authority is permitted to exist by God, that does not mean God approves of their actions (Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia?).

Gun Control

I am striving to be apolitical, but I can tell you that I do not agree with gun control.  I own guns and I want to keep owning guns.  All I am saying is that I do not want to use my guns against another human being.

The truth is that people kill people.  Whether it is machetes and clubs in Rwanda or atomic weapons in Japan or firebombing in Germany.  All three of those examples are examples of the unlawful use of weapons in war because they were used against civilians.  But I don’t want to digress into a discussion of the lawfulness of nuclear weapons or America’s past wars.  My point is I agree with Dr. Hammond that gun control is not an issue and gun control won’t solve anything.

Dr. Hammond closes with a quote from Nehemiah, so I will close with a quote from the Lord Jesus Christ:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’  But I tell you not to resist an evil person.  But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also.  And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two.  Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.  You have heard that it is said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’  But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.  For if you love those who love you, what reward have you?  Do not even the tax collectors do the same?  And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others?  Do not even the tax collectors do so?”  Matthew 5:38-47

8 Comments

Filed under Bible

Joshua Thomas

Our fourth baby is here!  You can link to my wife’s blog for the whole story, but the important facts are that my second son was born at 1:30 a.m. on Tuesday, July 14, 2009.  He is healthy, although he gave us a few scares in the first few days, and aside from his big nose, is a very cute boy.  We feel incredibly blessed to have been allowed this additional arrow in our quiver.

3 Comments

Filed under Baby

A Jesus Manifesto

This morning, I read A Jesus Manifesto.  Wow!  It just blew me away.  It synopsizes truth.  I was a little bothered by the plug for certain books that came at the end, but, ultimately, the manifesto makes many of the thoughts I have been having quite clear.  For instance:

It is possible to emphasize a spiritual truth, value, virtue, or gift, yet miss Christ . . . who is the embodiment and incarnation of all spiritual truth, values, virtues, and gifts.

Seek a truth, a value, a virtue, or a spiritual gift, and you have obtained something dead.

Jesus Christ cannot be separated from his teachings. Aristotle says to his disciples, “Follow my teachings.” Socrates says to his disciples, “Follow my teachings.” Buddha says to his disciples, “Follow my meditations.” Confucius says to his disciples, “Follow my sayings.” Muhammad says to his disciples, “Follow my noble pillars.” Jesus says to his disciples, “Follow me.” In all other religions, a follower can follow the teachings of its founder without having a relationship with that founder. Not so with Jesus Christ. The teachings of Jesus cannot be separated from Jesus himself. Jesus Christ is still alive and he embodies his teachings. It is a profound mistake, therefore, to treat Christ as simply the founder of a set of moral, ethical, or social teaching. The Lord Jesus and his teaching are one. The Medium and the Message are One. Christ is the incarnation of the Kingdom of God and the Sermon on the Mount.

Being a follower of Jesus does not involve imitation so much as it does implantation and impartation. Incarnation–the notion that God connects to us in baby form and human touch—is the most shocking doctrine of the Christian religion. The incarnation is both once-and-for-all and ongoing, as the One ―who was and is to come now is and lives his resurrection life in and through us. Incarnation doesn’t just apply to Jesus; it applies to every one of us. Of course, not in the same sacramental way. But close. We have been given God’s “Spirit” which makes Christ “real” in our lives. We have been made, as Peter puts it, “partakers of the divine nature.” How, then, in the face of so great a truth can we ask for toys and trinkets? How can we lust after lesser gifts and itch for religious and spiritual thingys? We’ve been touched from on high by the fires of the Almighty and given divine life. A life that has passed through death – the very resurrection life of the Son of God himself. How can we not be fired up?
To put it in a question: What was the engine, or the accelerator, of the Lord’s amazing life? What was the taproot or the headwaters of his outward behavior? It was this: Jesus lived by an indwelling Father. After his resurrection, the passage has now moved. What God the Father was to Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ is to you and to me. He’s our indwelling Presence, and we share in the life of Jesus’ own relationship with the Father. There is a vast ocean of difference between trying to compel Christians to imitate Jesus and learning how to impart an implanted Christ. The former only ends up in failure and frustration. The latter is the gateway to life and joy in our daying and our dying. We stand with Paul: “Christ lives in me.” Our life is Christ. In him do we live, breathe, and have our being. “What would Jesus do?” is not Christianity. Christianity asks: “What is Christ doing through me … through us? And how is Jesus doing it?” Following Jesus means ―trust and obey (respond), and living by his indwelling life through the power of the Spirit.

Jesus Christ was not a social activist nor a moral philosopher. To pitch him that way is to drain his glory and dilute his excellence. Justice apart from Christ is a dead thing. The only battering ram that can storm the gates of hell is not the cry of Justice, but the name of Jesus. Jesus Christ is the embodiment of Justice, Peace, Holiness, Righteousness. He is the sum of all spiritual things, the “strange attractor” of the cosmos. When Jesus becomes an abstraction, faith loses its reproductive power. Jesus did not come to make bad people good. He came to make dead people live.

It is possible to confuse an academic knowledge or theology about Jesus with a personal knowledge of the living Christ himself. These two stand as far apart as do the hundred thousand million galaxies. The fullness of Christ can never be accessed through the frontal lobe alone. Christian faith claims to be rational, but also to reach out to touch ultimate mysteries. The cure for a big head is a big heart.
Jesus does not leave his disciples with CliffsNotes for a systematic theology. He leaves his disciples with breath and body.
Jesus does not leave his disciples with a coherent and clear belief system by which to love God and others. Jesus gives his disciples wounds to touch and hands to heal.
Jesus does not leave his disciples with intellectual belief or a “Christian worldview.” He leaves his disciples with a relational faith.
Christians don’t follow a book. Christians follow a person, and this library of divinely inspired books we call “The Holy Bible” best help us follow that person. The Written Word is a map that leads us to The Living Word. Or as Jesus himself put it, “All Scripture testifies of me.” The Bible is not the destination; it’s a compass that points to Christ, heaven’s North Star.
The Bible does not offer a plan or a blueprint for living. The “good news” was not a new set of laws, or a new set of ethical injunctions, or a new and better PLAN. The “good news” was the story of a person’s life, as reflected in The Apostle’s Creed. The Mystery of Faith proclaims this narrative: “Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again.” The meaning of Christianity does not come from allegiance to complex theological doctrines, but a passionate love for a way of living in the world that revolves around following Jesus, who taught that love is what makes life a success . . . not wealth or health or anything else: but love. And God is love.

Okay, so I quoted alot of it.  I really found it profound.  It spoke to me.  Read it.  Maybe it will speak to you.

3 Comments

Filed under Bible, Books

The Name of God

The most popular search term that finds this blog is, unbelievably, ‘Floyd Nolen Jones.’  Floyd Nolen Jones is the author of Which Version is the Bible?, a book I reviewed a few years ago.  I read the book because I had recently been exposed to “King-James-only” types (otherwise known as “King James or else”).  Dr. Jones’ book appears to me to be one of the top books explaining this King-James-only view.

Interestingly enough, Dr. Jones starts his book with a section labeled, “To the Reader — the Sounding of an Alarm.”  Following is its text:

In the King James Bible, Isaiah 14:12, 15 reads:

How are thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!
… Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell.

However, the New International Version pens:

How you are fallen from heaven O morning star, son of the dawn
but you are brought down to the grave.

Indeed, the New American Standard and all the modern versions read almost exactly like the NIV (except the NKJV).  Yet historically Isaiah 14 has been cited throughout the Church as the singular biography and identification of Lucifer [citation omitted].  In verse twelve of the King James, Lucifer is in heaven;  in verse fifteen Satan is in hell, and the continuing context establishes that Lucifer and Satan are one and the same being.  The new versions have removed the name “Lucifer” thereby eliminating the only reference to his true identity in the entire Bible — yet the change in these versions is not the result of translation from the Hebrew language.

The Hebrew here is helel, ben shachar, which translates, “Lucifer, son of the morning” (as is found in all the old English translations written before 1611 when teh KJB was published).  The NIV, NASB et al. read as though the Hebrew was kokab shachar, ben shachar or “morning star, son of the dawn” (or “son of the morning”).  But not only is the Hebrew word for star (kokab) nowhere to be found in the text, “morning” appears only once as given in the KJB — not twice as the modern translations indicate.  Moreover, the word kokab is translated as “star” dozens of other times by the translators of these new “bibles”.  Their editors also know that kokab boqer is “morning star” for it appears in plural form in Job 38:7 (i.e., morning stars).  Had the Lord intended “morning star” in Isaiah 14, He could have eliminated any confusion by repeating kokab boqer there.  God’s selection of helel (Hebrew for Lucifer) is unique as it appears nowhere else in the Old Testament.

Moreover, Revelation 22:16 (also 2:28 and II Pet. 1:19) declares unequivocally that Jesus Christ is the “morning star” or “day star” (II Pet. 1:19, cp. Luk. 1:78; Mal. 4:2), meaning the sun — not the planet Venus.

I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches.  I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Thus it must be understood that the identification of Lucifer as being the morning star does not find its roots in the Hebrew O.T., but from classical mythology and witchcraft where he is connected with the planet Venus (the morning “star”).

The wording in the modern versions reads such that it appears the fall recorded in Isaiah 14 is speaking of Jesus rather than Lucifer the Devil!  The rendering of “morning star” in place of “Lucifer” in this passage must be seen by the Church as nothing less than the ultimate blasphemy.  The NASV compounds its role as malefactor by placing II Peter 1:19 in the reference next to Isaiah 14 thereby solidifying the impression that the passage refers to Christ Jesus rather than Satan.  But Lucifer (helel) does not mean “morning star”.  It is Latin (from lux or lucis = light, plus fero = to bring) meaning “bright one”, “light bearer” or “light bringer”.  Due to the brightness of the planet Venus, from ancient times the word “Lucifer” (helel) has been associated in secular and/or pagan works with that heavenly body.

Among the modern versions, only the King James (and NKJV) gives proof that Lucifer is Satan.  Without its testimony this central vital truth would soon be lost.  This fact alone sets the King James Bible apart from and far above all modern would-be rivals.  Truly, it is an achievement sui generis.  Indeed, the older English versions (the 1560 Geneva etc.) also read “Lucifer”.

The clarion has been faithfully and clearly sounded (I Cor. 14:8).  If the reader is not greatly alarmed by the above, it is pointless for him to continue reading.  However, if concern has been aroused as to how this deception has been foisted not only upon the Christian Church, but on the general public as well — read on.  The story lies before you.

Well, I have to say, these first two pages did not greatly alarm me.  Perhaps they should have, but they didn’t.

What I find interesting today is that with all the alarm Dr. Jones expresses over the omission of this singular occurrence of the name of Lucifer, there is not one single mention in the entire text of the repeated and deliberate omission of the Name of God, not just in the NIV and NASB, but in his beloved King James Authorized Version as well.  Go ahead, read your Bible through time and again.  It says quite plainly that those who call upon the Name of the LORD shall be saved.  So, what is His Name?  The God of the Hebrews makes a very big deal about names in general, but makes an especially big deal about His Name.  But what is it?  Just to be clear, is name is not LORD, although that is how it is typically translated.  Sometimes, your Bible probably says Lord and other times it says LORD.  There is a difference, but you wouldn’t know it from reading your Bible from Genesis 1 to Revelation 22.  You won’t find it in your Bible, but His Name can be transliterated “Yahweh.”

The translator’s notes admit to what they have done in the NIV and the NASB.  The NASB notes are particularly interesting:

In the scriptures, the name of God is most significant and understandably so.  It is inconceivable to think of spiritual matters without a proper designation for the Supreme Deity.  Thus the most common name for the Deity is God, a translation of the original Elohim.  One of the titles for God is Lord, a translation of Adonai.  There is yet another name which is particularly assigned to God as His special or proper name, that is, the four letters YHWH (Exodus 3:14 and Isaiah 42:8).  This name has not been pronounced by the Jews because of reverence for the great sacredness of the divine name.  Therefore, it has been consistently translated LORD.  The only exception to this translation of YHWH is when it occurs in immediate proximity to the word Lord, that is, Adonai.  In that case it is regularly translated GOD in order to avoid confusion.

It is known that for many years YHWH has been transliterated as Yahweh, however no complete certainty attaches to this pronunciation.

So, in summary, the Name of God is incredibly important, or essential, so we have left it out.  Instead, we have translated His Name as the title LORD, which is, incidentally, how we translate one of his titles, so to avoid confusion, rather than translating His Name as Yahweh and his title as Lord and the two together as Lord Yahweh, we will translate His Name as LORD, his title as Lord, and the two together as GOD.  Just to avoid confusion.

Deleting the Name of Yahweh from the Bible is far more offensive to me than deleting the name of Lucifer.

2 Comments

Filed under Bible, Books, Review