Is it ‘biblical’ or ‘in the Bible’?

I have listened to many Christians who refer to issues in the Bible as ‘biblical.’ Though it sounds right, it is not completely right. The fact is, there is difference between ‘biblical’ and ‘in the Bible.’ In other words, not everything in the Bible is biblical. Something ‘biblical’ refers to what is prescribed by the Bible, or what the Bible seems to suggest, or what the Bible teaches; whereas, something ‘in the Bible’ refers to what is mentioned in the Bible – narratives or Bible stories constitute the bulk of this part.

The relationship between the ‘biblical’ and the ‘in the Bible’ can be likened to the relationship between prescription and description respectively.  Something prescribed is to be followed or implemented. Conversely, something described serves as an information or knowledge with no necessity of implementation. The following examples highlight my points on the two concepts posed above:

Examples of ‘biblical’

• To love one another – we are mandated to do so (1 John 4:7).
• To believe in the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 16:31).
• To live a holy life – it is a mandate for us to be holy (1 Peter 1:16).

Examples of ‘in the Bible’

• A woman caught in adultery (John 4).
• Peter’s denial of Jesus Christ (Matt. 26: 69-75).
• Saul’s persecution of the church (Acts 9: 1, 2).

A good reader of the Bible would understand that the three points under the first example are what we are to implement or apply in our lives if we profess to be Christians. The points under the second examples, however, are informatory. We can learn from them, but we do not have to do what they say – we do not need to be adulterers, to deny Christ or to persecute the church. In fact, doing what the points in the second example are about is to act against what the Bible prescribes.

From the discussions above, one should now not confuse one concept for another. If any statement made is meant to suggest an action prescribed by the Bible, then, one may know it is ‘biblical’. However, if it is information provided without any direct suggestion for the readers, it is what referred to as ‘in the Bible.’ I should not be mistaken that the narratives do not teach us. No! They do teach us, and we learn from them too.

Caveat

The points discussed above can be misleading if one does not pay close attention. If the terms ‘biblical’ and ‘in the Bible’ are confusing, one should think of them as the ‘prescribed’ and ‘described’ respectively. There are other issues in the Bible that could hardly be placed under either term/concept. For instance, the death of Christ; is it biblical or in the Bible? My answer simply is that it is in the Bible. However, if I am answering someone who has some feeling of doubt whether Christ died, I might say it is biblical – for the sake of stressing my point. Here, I would mean, the Bible teaches about the death of Christ.

Why I Support the Relocation of the Capital of the RoSS from Juba

The issue of whether or not Juba should continue to be the capital city of the Republic of South Sudan (RoSS) after the official declaration of the independence of RoSS has been contentious. Whereas some think Juba should remain as the capital, others support the relocation of the capital from Juba to elsewhere. Though each group has got its own reason and tenet of where the capital should be situated, I tend to agree with those who want a new venue to host the capital. My reasons for the relocations of the capital might not be identical with those who support the relocation.

My reasons of the relocation of the capital city of RoSS from Juba are, therefore, as follows:

• Juba is an old city. Being an old city, the difficulty of redesigning, rebuilding, and the expansion of the city are undeniable. The resent map/design of the new capital which the government thinks of building cannot be an applicable matter in the current Juba. Those who are familiar with the history of rebuilding, they know how difficult is to rebuild an old city. It is easier to build a new city from nothing, especially if the new city is intended to meet the qualifications of today’s modern cities.
• Juba belongs to the Bari people. Juba, traditionally, historically, and without denial, belongs to the Bari community. The land policy in the South Sudan renders the ownership of the land to communities, not the government. Any attempt to grab a piece of land in Juba by any other communities would be a clear violation of law and denial of the existence of the owners of the land – the Baris. In his article titled, Potential of Conflict in Central and Western Equatoria State(s), Dr. Sakia Baas reports the following interview held with a certain owner of a plot in Juba right after the election,

“We own a plot in Tong Ping since the 1980s. We have a certificate that shows the land is ours. In 2007, we wanted to develop the land. We found a brigadier-general and a few of his soldiers there. They said “we shed blood for this land. How can you say it is your land?” They were threatening us not to come back to this land.” 

• Juba has the history of ethnic tussle. Those who know the history surrounding Juba, especially in 1980’s would vividly recall the kokora incident. The incident was started by Equatorians who felt unhappy with other communities for reasons attributed to politics. Since Juba hosted the so called kokora, it is likely to host similar incident if tensions arise. Relocating the capital, therefore, will be a kind of therapy to the incident’s aftermath.
• Juba is the most developed city in South Sudan. Juba is the most developed city in the entire region of Southern Sudan. Leaving Juba for another location for the establishment of a capital city will allow development shift to another area as well – and that is a good thing!
• There is tension in Juba. This point is related to the points discussed above. The reader, by now, must have sensed what type of tension might be already existed, or will exist, sooner or later, in Juba. Reconciliation is one way of resolving the tension; however, what about the owners of the land? How will they be compensated, and who will compensate them? Which land will they call their? These questions and concerns reflect the tensions that might, sooner or later, come to surface in Juba.

Without letting my readers think I am writing in the line of tribalism, let me make it clear that, “Prevention is better than cure!”. To try and resolve an issue is better than to pretend that everything is ok. Personally, I am not from the Bari community but I feel and understand why they always complain when it comes to land issues in Juba. Aren’t they right when they complain?

My reader might ask, “Where should the new capital be established?” or “Which land/city in South Sudan that do not have owners?” These concerns and others are pertinent. The reason Ramcel was suggested as a suitable location to host the new capital is that is not situated in the heart of a community, unlike as Juba. Such places as Ramcel and others could be the better options.

The views above are my own reading of the situation in South Sudan, and it is meant to promote the better living for the communities, taking into consideration everybody’s right and recognition. It is not meant to stir up or bring about hatred and ethnic division.

Thanks

Is the Mobile Phone More Important than People?

One may immediately conclude, "People are important", after reading the title of this post. Come! Listen!

Globally, the use of mobile phones has increased rapidly. City and village dwellers alike have access to mobile phones. Though it is a good think to have easy means of communication such as mobile phones, mobile phones have been increasingly becoming important than human beings! Why am I saying this?

Look around and see how someone near you would ignore you immediately when a call comes in. See how busy people would be browsing, texting, and play games on their phones while sitting in the middle of other people. This following simple question can bring clarity to what I mean. When someone sitting with friends, colleagues, or relatives prefer to chat using a mobile phone rather than directly chat with people present, what does it tell us with respect to importance? The simple answer is, mobile phone is important than people.

I know that many might still argue that, there is no way a mobile phone could be more important that human being. It is true; however, the action always speaks more that the mere words uttered. John, in his letter, tells us that love cannot be by words but by actions - he stresses the importance of action. In essence, human being is more important than anything else in the world; however, the same human being, through actions, tries to make other things such as mobile phone look more important than human being.

Though the element of addiction to phones and chats is not ignored, I still think people always interact much with what they like or related to most.

The best way to use a phone is:

1. to use it to communicate important and necessary issues.
2. not to browse or chat when in the middle of those you can directly chat with.
3. to love people more than your phone.
4. to develop a habit of switching off phones when in a meeting or important functions including church. 

You are welcome to let me know what you think about the topic.