Be angry...or uh, I mean don't be angry

My wife and I are going through the Book of James together and recently came across James 1:19,20 which says:

19This you know, my beloved brethren But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger;
20for the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God.

From verse 20 the question I am forced to ask is, "Does the anger of God achieve His righteousness?" I would say Yes, it does. How can His anger NOT achieve His righteousness?

The next question I want to ask is then, "Since the anger of man does not achieve God's righteousness, is man's anger therefore wrong and sinful?"

Scripture has the following to say about anger:

Galatians 5:19-21
19Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: (A)immorality, impurity, sensuality,
20idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions,
21envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Colossians 3:8
8But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth.

Ephesians 4:31
31Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice.

I might be said about the first passage that only 'outbursts' of anger are sinful, and that how one handles anger is dependent on if it is sin or not, however, the latter two passages seem to say that all anger and wrath are sin.

I think a comparison is in order. One between anger and another emotion that is a result of our sinful state yet is not sin in itself. I choose sadness. How are sadness and anger different? How is sadness good and anger not good? Sadness accomplishes pity which in turn can result in love. How can anger result in love or anything positive?

There is also another verse regarding anger that says:

Ephesians 4:26
26BE ANGRY, AND yet DO NOT SIN; do not let the sun go down on your anger,

There two things I want to point out about this verse. First, there are two different Greek words used in the verses listed. The word used in the verse above is orgizo, and the word used in the other verses listed is orge, the definitions for which are listed below

3709. orge or-gay' from 3713; properly, desire (as a reaching forth or excitement of the mind), i.e. (by analogy), violent passion (ire, or (justifiable) abhorrence); by implication punishment:--anger, indignation, vengeance, wrath.

3710. orgizo or-gid'-zo from 3709; to provoke or enrage, i.e. (passively) become exasperated:--be angry (wroth).

The noted difference between the two is (a)provocation and (b)passiveness. So Ephesians 4:26 refers to a provoked passive anger or exasperation whereas the other verses such as Ephesians 4:31 refer to good ol' regular anger as we know and love it.

Secondly, Paul is supposedly quoting Psalm 4:4 in Ephesians 4:26, which reads:

Psalm 4:4
4Tremble, and do not sin; Meditate in your heart upon your bed, and be still. Selah.

In Psalm 4:4 the psalmist is saying tremble with fear,...not anger. This leads me to ask if Paul REALLY is quoting Psalm 4:4, or if there is corruption, etc. I also think that Paul might have been using the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) but I'm not sure that would make sense since Paul was an ex-Pharisee. I have found a Greek Septuagint online, but copying and pasting words into Lexicons does not work so I'm not sure what the definitions of certain words are.

LXX

Until these questions about Ephesians 4:26 and Psalm 4:4 are figured out I'm not really sure, but if I had to draw a conclusion right now, I would say that anger is indeed a sin....more to come soon, I'm still doing reading

Christianity vs 'Well established science'

This article is referring to this comment posted on Victor Reppert's blog.

First I want to state that I agree that "It is the mark of a true Christian to show 'faith seeking understanding' and to be intellectually honest with respect to science and learning." Mr. Walters says this, however, as if there is a vast difference between intellectual honesty regarding science and learning and theological or even Biblical honesty. Nevertheless, this is a small matter.

What I really want to address is the following: "If as Polkinghorne says we see science as a manifestation of our being made in the image of God we should certainly "study to show ourselves approved unto God" and accept the well-established results of science, including evolution and the latest results of neuroscience."

The reference to 2 Timothy 2:15 is, in my opinion, abused here. The KJV is used, and I do not think that "study" is the more accurate word to use, nor is it, if it were to be used, to mean "study" as we mean study. I think the NAS and HCS are better Bible's to use here, which translate the word "be diligent." It is an exhortation to maintain and more importantly to show one's pursuit of righteousness by having righteous works. Not to study books and pursue intelligence. Am I saying the Bible does not condone or even that it admonishes the pursuit of intellectual integrity? of course not. However, this verse should not be used as an appeal to show that we can show ourselves approved to God by studying.

I do not think that science is a manifestation of our being created in the image of God. Rather I see science as a way to know and more importantly glorify God by exploring His creation. His image is projected by us more so by our emotions, and by love in the giving of ourselves, and by our souls, and by our minds. It would not be prudent to interpret the latter in the list as pursuing intelligence. We must have a mind to understand the law and law is to show us our sin. We need a mind to know God's law, and to obey it...or not to.

Lastly, the inclusion of evolution with the "well-established results of science" is ambiguous. As it has been stated before historical science(or origins science or forensic science) is truly based on best-guess. Why is evolution the best guess? And why should it be presupposed that Genesis is 'creation myth?' Is it because it doesn't agree with the secular uniformitarian time-scale (along with many other aspects of secular science but uniformitarian geology is always touted as fact by even certain theologians)? I contend that evolutionary theory is not the result of science but of science gone bad just as sin is the result of the pursuit of good in the wrong way.

Into The Da Vinci Code

Ben Witherington - The Da Vinci Code Movie---Are you ready to Rumble?

Bishop of Durham,Tom Wright on the resurrection and The Da Vinci Code

and most importantly, why we should care:

Jason Pratt's thoughts on The Da Vinci Code and Dan Brown