To Boldly Go...

That's right. This is the new teaser poster for Star Trek XI. As the poster suggests, the movie will take place during the time of the original 1960's Star Trek and will most likely center around a young Kirk and Spock. This could be a really good idea or an absolutely terrible one. J. J. Abrams will produce the movie, co-write the script, and possibly direct it. For those of you who don't know the name, J. J. Abrams is the creator of Alias and Lost, both of which are really great TV shows (Lost being the most popular show on TV right now). He also recently wrote and directed Mission Impossible III, which was a very good movie despite Tom Cruise being a wacko. With a track record like that it's easy to see why Paramount was quick to hand over their oldest and most lucrative franchise to him. He's also said that he's a huge fan of TOS and TNG (that's The Original Series and The Next Generation for all you non-geeks) and that he will be very respectful of the Trek "cannon." So, this movie will either be a huge success, reinventing the franchise and ensuring that Star Trek continues strong for years to come, or it will be a huge bomb and could seal the fate of Star Trek forever. Needless to say, I'm hoping for the former.

Apparently the "blogosphere" really is growing, because Star Trek XI has its own blog. Click here to check it out. I've also added it under my "News & Favorites" links. Also, if you'd like to make the above poster your desktop or AIM buddy icon (because I know you all do), click here.

2008 may be a little far away right now, but I can't wait. This has been a long time comming.

Lost In Translation

As it turns out, the ESV translation of the Bible may not be the near-perfect gem I thought it was. The ESV is supposed to translate litterally, in word-for-word or phrase-for-phrase fasion, from the original Greek and Hebrew texts. At the same time, it has been translated in such a way that it uses flowing, graceful and easy to read modern English language. One might have thought it to be the perfect synthesis between the NIV and the NASB. Instead, I have found that it falls short at both attempts, for clarity as well as for accuracy.

Many key passages of the ESV are translated in such a way that makes it almost painfully obvious that the translators were purposfully trying to muddy the doctrines of grace, at least in my opinion. Oddly enough, I've come to find that the NIV is actually more literal in these cases, as well as clear to read. But don't just take my word for it. Let's examine several of these passages. I'll report, you decide.

Philippians 1: 29

(ESV) For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake.

(NIV) For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him.

The NIV makes it clear that belief or faith is what has been granted to us. The ESV's use of the word "should" makes the meaning more ambiguous, leaving open the possibility that it is the ability to choose to believe in Christ ourselves that has been granted to us.

Ephesians 2: 8

(ESV) For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God.

(NIV) For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God.

In this case, a simple change in punctuation changes the meaning of the verse. The NIV is clearly defining faith as the gift from God, while the ESV reads as though our salvation in general is the gift in question. Both are true I suppose, but once again the ESV leaves us without a clear answer to the doctrinal question at hand.

Romans 9: 11-12

(ESV) though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad--in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call--she was told, "The older will serve the younger."

(NIV) Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger."

Here the meaning in both passages is basically the same, just worded differently. However, the Greek word which the ESV translates as "continue" actually means "to remain, abide, to remain unbroken." The NIV translates the word as "stand", which is more literal.

2 Corinthians 1: 21

(ESV) And it is God who establishes us with you in Christ, and has anointed us.

(NIV) Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us...

This in no minor difference. The NIV clearly supports the perserverence of the siants here, or at the very least it says that God is responsible for our ability to stand firm in our Christian walk. The ESV uses the word "establishes", which completely changes the meaning. It also includes our anointing in the same sentance, while the NIV places that in the next sentance, making it clear that it is part of a new and seperate thought.

This is all rather shocking, to say the least. The ESV is the official translation now used by the Torrey Academy at Biola as well as Dr. Godfrey and Westminster Seminary. And of course, R. C. Sproul's new Reformation study Bible is in the ESV. Perhaps they know something I don't yet. As I've read through each of these translations I've found that, as far as style goes, I often perfer the NIV to the ESV anyway. And now that I know the NIV isn't the near-paraphrase that I once thought it was, I'll probably be using it alot more, at least for my personal devotions. In any case, this all just goes to show that it's helpful to have a parallel Bible handy, especially one that has four different translations side-by-side. After all, no one is perfect.