News|Sports|Main Menu|Archives Menu|Classified|Advertising|Monahans
First, I held a baby boy. Second, I came home from the Easter
celebration where I held the little boy, and was informed that a friend
of mine had given birth to a baby girl that morning.
These two young children are not yet old enough to have a sense of the
world around them; their lives can easily be counted in terms of days.
What kind of world are we giving to the children of 1997? It could be
much worse, but there are many things that each of us could do to make
it a whole lot better.
Some of my thoughts may seem idealistic, but idealism and dreams are
where goals come from. Every accomplishment was an ideal, a goal, and
then that dream became reality.
The Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. had a dream. What might the world
be like today if he were still alive to spread his vision?
Look around you. What do you see? Do you see anyone who is truly black,
red, white, yellow or olive skinned? Unless there is a coloring book or
a cartoon before you, probably not. Almost all of the people I have seen
in the six countries that I have been in have been some shade of brown.
Some of us are closer to a peach color, some a deep golden tan, others a
chocolate brown and so on, but I think we are all more alike than
different. You may be a couple of shades lighter or darker than me or
the person next to you, but we're really not all that different.
What I see the vast majority of the time is a whole bunch of human
beings with one head and two arms and two legs who need to put their
heads together and work together to make this planet a cleaner, more
peaceful place for all children to grow up.
A lot of peopole seem to think they can't make a difference because
they're just one person. Entire armies are made up of individual people,
banding together to fight for a common cause.
Think about this. What if everyone in town picked up a piece of trash,
made an effort to be kind to a stranger with a different skin tone, or
planted a tree, and we all did the same thing at the same time? It would
make a huge difference!
Take the tree-planting example. Plants are like natural air filters,
because when we breathe in air, our lungs take out what is good for us
and we exhale the other stuff. Plants use the stuff we don't, and emit
more of what we need. That isn't a highly scientific explanation, but
I'm not here to teach science; other people get paid to do that. Anyway,
trees and other plants help to improve our air quality, their roots help
to keep the wind and rain from eroding the soil, and trees grow up to be
excellent source of shade, as well as convenient places to hang homemade
swings. Imagine that we planted a tree for every person in town. Some of
us who are a bit out of shape might have a sore back for a day or two,
but 12,000 trees would make a big impact, especially in the future. When
this year's babies become high school seniors, those trees would be
pretty well grown, too.
Everything we do today has an effect upon the future. The can you
recycle today won't be helping to overcrowd a landfill tomorrow. The
plastic you don't throw in the lake today can't kill the fish your son
might catch someday. The oil that you don't dump in the alley after you
do your own oil change won't contaminate your town's groundwater, and
the person you do a favor for today may be the person who stoops to help
your daughter to change a flat tire on her way home from college in a
few years. Sure, no one person can do it all alone, but every little bit
Let's all do our part, whatever that may be, to make tomorrow better
for today's children.
EDITOR'S NOTE: Cara Alligood is an Enterprise writer and advertising
administrator whose column appears on Wednesday.
The writer mentioned that the modern versions have accommodated
evolution in the creation story by subtly changing "the" second day to
"a" second day and referred to Genesis 1:8. It appears that the writer
is unaware of the fact that the translators of Genesis followed the
exact reading given in the original Hebrew text as it comes down to us
today. They did not subtly change the "the" in the original because the
Hebrew author of Genesis did not include the Hebrew definite article
with the ordinal number for two. Any student of the Sacred Hebrew text
is cognizant of the fact that the Hebrew language does not have a word
for an indefinite article such as we have in the English language. When
the Hebrew wishes to make a thing definite it may include with it the
article; whereas, if the article is not included it may be understood in
the English translation as indefinite, and may be rendered by the
English indefinite article "a."
This sort of indefiniteness is seen from the original Hebrew text at
Gen. 30:7 in the words "ben sheni" where even KJ renders it "a second
son." There is no definite article included with the substantive "ben"
(son). Here NASB, NIV, JB, etc. render the expression by "a second son,"
thus remaining true to the original text as with Gen. 1:8 relating to "a
second day." Apparently it was the KJ translators who did not abide by
the rule by their inclusion of the definite article "the" in Gen. 1:8.
When one reads the Hebrew text it will be found that only two words are
given for numbering the second day: the words "yom sheni." Here we have
simply "a day second." The ordinal `second' (sheni) follows the general
law of adjectives in position and agreement with the substantive, to
which it belongs. So in a literal English translation it is "a second
day." The Hebrew could have rendered the expression definite as in Gen.
1:31, which says "yom hashshishshi." Here the defininte article "ha" is
included with the ordinal for "sixth." The expression literally says
"day the sixth." Here the modern versions (such as NASB, NIV, JB. etc.)
correctly render the expression "yom hashshishshi" into English by "the
It might be added here that when the Hebrew has a series of two persons
or things, the next may be called "hashsheni" the second, as given in
Exodus 25:12, 32,33; 2 Sam. 4:2, 1 Kings 6:25,26,27,34. In the first
reference King James says "the other," in the second reference, KJ says
"the other" but shows in the column note for the word "other" the word
"second." In English the expression "the other" is understood to mean
"the second" of the group of persons or things. This is followed also by
NASB (at verse 32 of Ex. 25; NASB also gives a column note for the word
"other" in which it says, Lit., second.)
It appears that NIV stuck closer to the original Hebrew by actually
translating the "hashsheni" by the English "the second" instead of "the
other" at verse 25 of 1 Kings 6; also JB says "the second" in verse 33
of Ex. 25 instead of "the other." Although KJ and NASB admit in their
notes that "hashsheni" means "the second," they consistently rendered it
by "the other." There is no discrepancy if the translation of
"hashsheni" is given either as "the other" or "the second." However, it
must be kept in mind that in these cases the ordinal "second" includes
the Hebrew definite article, which is translated into English by "the,"
but at Gen. 1:8 the Hebrew article is not included, hence it is not a
discrepancy to translate the ordinal by simply saying "a second" where
it describes the Hebrew word for day. The modern versions are correct on
The writer claims that an error may be found in Daniel 3:25 with the
fourth person in the furnace. Again his claim for error rests on his
acceptance of the absolute correctness of the "Authorized" King James
Version at this point.
Apparently the writer does not consider that the verse is a quotation
from the mouth of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon made to his counselors.
Of course, Christians may have their own peculiar interpretation about
whom the fourth person was; it certainly does not mean that the
polytheist Nebuchadnezzar would have conceived of our interpretation.
The translation given by NASB merely translates the exact words of the
king without applying a conception of a later period of individuals who
hold a monotheistic belief concerning the fourth person in the furnace.
Yet even our interpretation may not be in harmony with the words of the
king. Dr. Adam Clarke, an eminent Bible scholar of the nineteenth
century, wrote in his commentary concerning the translation `Is like the
Son of God' of verse 25 that it is a most improper translation. What
notion could this idolatrous king have of the Lord Jesus Christ? He says
that the place is understood by thousands to mean Jesus Christ.
Now the Hebrew (or Chaldean) of the text is "bar elahin" and signifies
merely "a son of the gods," that is, a divine person or angel; and so
the king calls him in verse 28. Once again there is no discrepancy or
error to be found in the actual translation of this verse by our current
versions. The NASB's rendering is: "...and the appearance of the fourth
is like a son of the gods!" NIV's is: "...the fourth looks like a son of
the gods." JB's is: "....And the fourth looks like a son of the gods."
The NKJV says "...like the Son of God" but adds a footnote: "Or, `a son
of the gods'." The RSV says, "...is like a son of the gods." NWT's
rendering is: "...the fourth one is resembling a son of the gods." NEB
does not translate the word "bar" for "son" but simply says: "...looks
like a god." In its footnotes it points to verse 28 with the comment,
"this fourth `person' is called an angel." Finally, the Santa Biblia, a
version first published in Spain, two years before the King James,
rendered the Hebrew correctly in the Spanish language: "...y el parecer
del cuarto es semejante a hijo de los dioses." (...is like to a son of
I have gone to some length to show that the Hebrew text, which is the
ultimate source of our Old Testament, is not erroneously translated by
the English expression "a son of the gods" although it may not suit the
prejudice of some who feel that the King James Version is the ultimate
authority for the rendering of the ancient Hebrew and Greek texts upon
which all versions and translations must be judged.
L. J. Montgomery, Minister
Community Church of Chirst
No one wants to come into a town that is afraid to grow. Those of us
who have chosen to make Pecos our home sit and watch as our children
grow up and leave. We sit here and watch as our choice of goods and
services become fewer and fewer. We rub our hands together and ask,
"What are we going to do, what will become of us?" I am just as guilty
of this as anybody else, but I think it is now time for a change.
There is a small group of investors who are trying to bring new
business to Pecos, but they are met by opposition on nearly every
corner. They are trying to create employment opportunities by opening
new businesses and by filling some of these empty buildings. All they
need is for the city leaders to step up and say come on in. We will help
in any way we can. We are all for it. We need you. We want you.
Just a short time ago, the zoning board stepped up and did just that.
They said, "Yes it's time to change some things that will help get Pecos
jump started. It's time for growth. "They stepped up just to be shot
down by a city council that can not see past yesterday. The council was
not willing to take a step forward. They prefer to mark time and just
watch as growth passes them by.
Pecos, it's time to let them know how you feel. Call them, write them,
stop them on the street. Tell them that you want Pecos to grow. Tell
them that you want change. Tell them that you want more businesses and
less taxes. Tell them to remember May 3rd.
-- Armando Hinojos
Return to top
Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall
not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or
redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP
Materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for
personal and non-commercial use. The AP will not be held liable for
any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the
transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages
arising from any of the foregoing.
Copyright 1997 by Pecos Enterprise
Division of Buckner News Alliance, Inc.
324 S. Cedar St., Pecos, TX 79772
Phone 915-445-5475, FAX 915-445-4321
Return to Home Page
Return to Menu