Our kids need hope, not fear. "When we moved to a small town a few years ago we asked our neighbor if the children could fish in his pond. He said he would love for them to but he was afraid they would drown and he would be liable...so, no they could not. You might almost wonder what kind of parent would allow their child around a pond? Or on a bicycle? Or in a football game? Or near a tick? We are not that far from that sort of fear and judgment." It sounds sad, but I understand this 'fear'. It's definitely not something I grew up with though. I drank out of the hose, walked barefoot on the asphalt, climbed trees (and fell out of trees), rode dirt bikes up and down the driveway...and so many other things that my own kids haven't done. Why? Because there's that fear factor (admittedly, it wasn't my fear of things happening but the fact that something could happen and someone would be liable was repeatedly told to me; it kept me from allowing them to do the things I did when I was a kid). When kids are young and don't have these experiences, they have a sense of fear, recognized or not, that stays with them. "As parents we need to do better than that. We must always make sure hope overwhelms our personal fears for our children and the future."
Homeschooling being taken over by cyber buffs...or something like that. Okay, not really. But the article talks about those who, perhaps not what people think of when they think 'homeschoolers'?, are taking the step to homeschool. I liked how the writer of this article, though somewhat skeptical of homeschooling it appears, acknowledges the benefits of it; at least in the families observed. One of the schools linked (near the end of the articles) states that at their school students "learn how to learn". Which makes me think of Charlotte Mason: kids know how to learn, they just need to be allowed to do so with the best resources at their disposal.
Not related to the other topics up there at all, are two posts about which Bible to choose: KJV or Not the KJV. The first post really talks about the use of the KJV for the literary benefits, while the second for understanding beyond the here and now. I do understand the arguments of both these posts. We use the KJV but I own quite a few translations (or versions, if you will).
From the AO website: "Scholars and writers of that era possessed deft command of the nuances of grammar and syntax, because their educations were rooted firmly in the study of the static ancient languages of Latin and Greek...English in the days of King James and Shakespeare was high art, in both product and form...Classic books are steadily moving beyond the grasp of modern readers. A widening language chasm cruelly threatens to separate us from our own cultural treasures. By choosing the KJV, we bridge that chasm, and in crossing over find ourselves strolling amidst wise and benevolent giants." And yet, "How curious, really, that modern believers, especially those among us who claim to relish great literature, should look upon this crowning literary achievement of the Christian era as a distant and unapproachable relation!"
"But," as is quoted at Piney Woods, "the little English child is thrust out in the cold by an archaic mod of address, reverent in the ears of us older people, but forbidding, we may be sure, to the child. (CM, Vol. 2, p. 56)" The argument here is Charlotte Mason's own for a translation that is accessible to the child, to bring him close to God. Because that is the purpose of the Bible ultimately.
To my thinking, if a child grows up with the KJV they will find access to God through it. If they come to it later, they can still find access. Because God does not need the 'words' of one particular book to reach a heart. But at the same time, if one has not had the exposure to the old 'archaic' writings, then it will be more difficult to gain a grasp of what is behind the words. (Acts 8:30, 31; Romans 10:14, 15) God's Word will endure forever.
I've spent too long on this one bit, I think. I do find it very interesting, the study of different translations.
How about some foxes? A place in Japan has a sanctuary of sorts that is stuffed full of foxes. Beautiful, cute, fluffy foxes! Zao Fox Village is home to over one hundred red, silver and platinum foxes. Well, my "Fox" would love this!
Homeschooling being taken over by cyber buffs...or something like that. Okay, not really. But the article talks about those who, perhaps not what people think of when they think 'homeschoolers'?, are taking the step to homeschool. I liked how the writer of this article, though somewhat skeptical of homeschooling it appears, acknowledges the benefits of it; at least in the families observed. One of the schools linked (near the end of the articles) states that at their school students "learn how to learn". Which makes me think of Charlotte Mason: kids know how to learn, they just need to be allowed to do so with the best resources at their disposal.
Not related to the other topics up there at all, are two posts about which Bible to choose: KJV or Not the KJV. The first post really talks about the use of the KJV for the literary benefits, while the second for understanding beyond the here and now. I do understand the arguments of both these posts. We use the KJV but I own quite a few translations (or versions, if you will).
From the AO website: "Scholars and writers of that era possessed deft command of the nuances of grammar and syntax, because their educations were rooted firmly in the study of the static ancient languages of Latin and Greek...English in the days of King James and Shakespeare was high art, in both product and form...Classic books are steadily moving beyond the grasp of modern readers. A widening language chasm cruelly threatens to separate us from our own cultural treasures. By choosing the KJV, we bridge that chasm, and in crossing over find ourselves strolling amidst wise and benevolent giants." And yet, "How curious, really, that modern believers, especially those among us who claim to relish great literature, should look upon this crowning literary achievement of the Christian era as a distant and unapproachable relation!"
"But," as is quoted at Piney Woods, "the little English child is thrust out in the cold by an archaic mod of address, reverent in the ears of us older people, but forbidding, we may be sure, to the child. (CM, Vol. 2, p. 56)" The argument here is Charlotte Mason's own for a translation that is accessible to the child, to bring him close to God. Because that is the purpose of the Bible ultimately.
To my thinking, if a child grows up with the KJV they will find access to God through it. If they come to it later, they can still find access. Because God does not need the 'words' of one particular book to reach a heart. But at the same time, if one has not had the exposure to the old 'archaic' writings, then it will be more difficult to gain a grasp of what is behind the words. (Acts 8:30, 31; Romans 10:14, 15) God's Word will endure forever.
I've spent too long on this one bit, I think. I do find it very interesting, the study of different translations.
How about some foxes? A place in Japan has a sanctuary of sorts that is stuffed full of foxes. Beautiful, cute, fluffy foxes! Zao Fox Village is home to over one hundred red, silver and platinum foxes. Well, my "Fox" would love this!
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for stopping by my blog. Please leave a comment, I love them! Have a great day! ~Blossom
PS: all comments are moderated so you won't see it posted immediately :)