Tag Archives: bias

Anti-Science: An Analysis

Posted on by
7

There’s nothing like peer pressure and shame culture to stifle what is loosely called “free thinking”. As people have always done, they vigorously defend “the prevailing scientific view” as what “thinking” people accept rather than clinging to outdated or backward views held in the past. By elitist mockery they force conformity of thought and call it “free” just because it doesn’t involve a supernatural entity or deity. They deem anyone not conforming as fearful or stupid, whether directly or by inference.

I mentioned in my previous blog post that the sciences of geometry and physics are showing signs of cracking in their foundations regarding the supernatural. They are reaching the point where they can no longer observe without changing the thing they’re trying to observe, or measure without altering the thing they’re trying to measure. When observation or measurement reach a certain point the accepted scientific methods can no longer be used… as if they were not to be seen with naturalistic eyes. And without direct observation or repeatable experimentation, it is, by definition, not science.

Now when we discuss the matter of origins, whether living or nonliving, we are outside the realm of the scientific method. In fact, the past cannot be scientifically observed or measured at all, even for something that happened yesterday. Everything science can do is limited to the present; it can only measure or observe what exists right now. Knowledge can be accumulated and stored of course, but the experiments were observed at the time and verified by repetition. So when science theorizes about something that happened only once in the past and was not observed, it is no longer science; likewise, when it projects the future, it is not acting according to science but to faith in its present calculations or theories.1 A theory may be derived by observations/measurements, but unless it is testable (falsifiable)2 by scientific methods, it is just a guess or belief.

By “science philosophy”‘s3 own definition, then, any view that purports to define YEC4 as an unscientific or anti-science theory is itself unscientific/anti-science. If evolutionism itself refuses to discuss or include origins5, then any claim that YEC is anti-science or unscientific is disingenous or ill-informed at best. Yet I see many, many people, with a wide range of educational levels, all insisting that YEC is a laughable, backward, ignorant, fearful, and above all anti-science belief. So it is they who do not understand the definition and limitations of the scientific method, and who do not admit the faith they have in it as being every bit as “religious”, fanatical, and anti-science as YEC.

This blog post was prompted by the discussion of an Answers article.6 Keep the things I just discussed in mind as you read it, and look for misconceptions about both theories as well as logical fallacies. One important point to keep in mind is that scientists on both sides observe and measure the same things; the data is identical. The debate is thus not over raw data but interpretation, which in spite of the claims of the anti-design side is not science but philosophy. Each side insists that the raw data “prove” this or that, when in fact data can do nothing of the sort; people interpret the data. And when the true scientific method is employed, meaning sticking to the strict definition, all scientists agree on what is observed or measured.

Clearly, then, there can never be a conflict between the YEC and science, but only between one philosophical interpretation and another. That is, the question, “Can evolution and creation coexist?” is strictly and only a philosophical debate, NOT a science vs. religion debate. Whether the topic of discussion is origins or how the world and what it contains has changed over time, it will never be a scientific debate at all. I can hope/dream that someday both sides will admit this, but that’s all I can do.

    1. theory, fact, law
    2. def. of falsifiable: “‘Falsifiable’ does not mean ‘false’”
    3. philosophy of science
    4. Young Earth Creationism: the earth and all it contains was created in six literal 24-hour solar days
    5. evo has nothing to do/say about origins
    6. Notes on the referenced article in particular: OECs (old earth creationists) will of course insist that “evolution” is an observed, tested, and measured scientific fact, but I find the basis for that claim groundless and circular. Measuring devices must first be calibrated; that is, one must first of all have some idea of the scale of the anticipated results. For example, an oven thermometer does not have the same scale as a body temperature thermometer, though both use the same unit of measure (degrees). In the same way, one cannot measure the age of a rock without first having some preconceived idea of the scale. Thus, if the scientist presupposes a scale on the order of millions of years, that’s how the device to measure it will be calibrated. Conversely, if the scientist presupposes NOTHING (truly the scientific approach), they will try a variety of scales. This principle of scale and calibration can be extended into other scientific disciplines as well. (Of course biology is much more complex, but here again we can only observe what exists in the present; all theories about the past are outside the realm of science. There are many other obstacles to biological evolution as well; see this blunt article for example.)

When ‘Biblical’ Means ‘Shut Up’

Posted on by
9

Time once again to remind ourselves that there are entire organizations dedicated to keeping women in the place designated for them by men. They say “no, by God” (or, “NO, BY GOD!!”), but that has never been successfully established. And by labeling their opinions and interpretations “Biblical” they hope to stifle all opposition as ungodly and rebellious.

I speak primarily of course about council members for the infamous CBMW, on the occasion of the one-year anniversary this past Sunday of the Freedom For Christian Women’s Demand for an Apology (more info here). And one cannot help but notice that every token woman on that council is first or primarily described as a “homemaker” or “pastor’s wife”. Gotta keep those wimmin folk in the kitchen! Of course they do other things like write and teach other wimmin folk, and rake in some significant cash for their “Christs” (Eph. 5:22) in the process, but they’re still “homemakers” above all and never pastors themselves but only auxiliaries of them. A place for every woman, and every woman in her place.

The irony of their organization’s title still escapes them, for the terms “manhood” and “womanhood” are nowhere to be found in the Bible. We see men and women both having courage or timidity, both having harshness or tenderness, both crying and laughing, and other aspects of the human nature men and women share. There is no “men rule, women drool” in the pages of the New Testament— another term poorly grasped by male supremacists. Is it really a New Testament when the only thing changed for women is that they have less freedom to speak in assembly, less opportunity or gifting to have public authority, and less ability to escape an abusive husband than women of the Old Testament? Are these Southern Baptists oblivious to the double standard of finally apologizing to US blacks for condoning slavery in the past, while refusing to apologize to women when the arguments for both sins are identical? Or are they deliberately choosing to keep a tight grip on the last refuge for men who love to be first in line?

They have been confronted about poor teachings on the Greek text on more than one occasion yet forge ahead as if exposure of their linguistic incompetence might mar their careers. But like the current holder of the title of US President who is more concerned with re-election than the good of the country, the CBMW Council seems more concerned with holding power and role-playing than the good of the Body of Christ. Their teachings have often been cited by abusers in the churches as justification, and many pastors have sent women back to their abusers because they either must have caused it by insubordination or should “suffer for Christ” with willing and glad submission (one resource). While there may be a few abusers claiming to be egalitarian, nobody ever cites egal. teachings in defense.

Since the SBC has apologized for the sin of white supremacy, there is no excuse for organizations like CBMW to exist, much less to continue propagating the sin of male supremacy. Calling it Biblical is like putting cream cheese frosting on a brick and calling it a delicacy. This tactic is identical to that of various cults who tack the name of Jesus on teachings that couldn’t be more opposite from those of the real Jesus. There is simply nothing Biblical about “manhood and womanhood” role-playing games.

But can such organizations and their members be changed? Are we to keep trying to reform them? Personally, since I also reject hierarchy between the contrived clergy and laity classes, it’s my conviction to start from scratch and model the Body of Christ apart from them instead of trying to change them from within, because if others are likewise convicted to keep doing so, we also need someplace for people to go if they are convinced that the old, traditional paradigm is wrong.

Either way, and more likely together, we all can make a difference— even if it doesn’t bear fruit for another hundred years. We have to try, even though the first American “feminists” were devout Christian women who campaigned also against slavery on the same grounds. But if not, we take comfort in Jesus’ promise that “last will be first, and the first will be last” in the coming kingdom (Mt. 20:16, 20-28).

Growing Pairs

Posted on by

No, that’s not a typo. Yes, it’s about a common vulgar expression. No, I don’t think it’s funny. Yes, I’m about to rant and be all offended and stuff. Here’s an example of what I’m going on about today, a comment from a popular blog where some preachers apparently hang out (pun intended):

These preachers need to “grow a pair” and let the donors know how much of “God’s money” they are taking for themselves and their wives and family’s salaries… I would be more concerned about “pairless” preachers not divulging how they are siphoning off funds given “to God” for their own family and branding.

Now I agree that if a church must have a paid professional preacher, said pro should divulge the handling of finances that the people are told are for “God’s work”. But can’t even the most infantile believer find a better way to talk about courage? What ever happened to the gender-neutral word “guts”? Oh that’s right, it’s evil because it’s gender-neutral, and women can tecnhically have “guts”, so we gotta make courage a stricly male attribute by mapping it to male anatomy.

This is very common and growing (another pun intended) in popularity. Every good human quality is now described in male-centric terms. People are insulted by such expressions as “girly men”, “you throw like a girl”, “scream like a little girl”, “chickified”, “pantywaist”, “effeminate”, and “soft”, but praised in terms like “having a pair”, “man up”, “wear the pants” and so on. One expects this from secular culture, that evil thing “pairless” men bow to. But the standard for believers should be higher than that, and the standard for Christian leaders higher still.

Some of them, when confronted with this, will say among themselves, “Ok, we need to clean up our talk when the ladies are around.” How insulting! The ladies are treated like children whose tender ears must be protected from the big bad world. Instead, how about showing real courage by standing up to the potty-mouthed men and telling them YOU don’t want to hear it either? Why would any believer, but especially one claiming leadership, not mind hearing this sort of talk? It was Paul who said “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen” (Eph. 4:29), and “Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving” (Eph. 5:4).

When will today’s believers, and especially Christian leaders, develop the GUTS to stop “bowing to culture”? Where is the line drawn between relevance and bowing? Are we supposed to be doing the spiritual limbo (“how low can you go”), or aiming for the best and most noble? Are we descending into the sewers of the world to lift people up, or to wallow there with them?

Translation and Interpretation, Pt. 2

Posted on by

This is a continuation of a series of articles purporting to analyze “the Bible Versions Debate”. The second part is presently in the form of a PDF and will be examined below.

Part Two

Introduction– This part begins of course with an appeal to arguments made in the first, namely, that only a word-for-word translation can be called ‘scripture’. And while all would agree that interpreting a text depends first of all upon that text being accurate, the fact remains that in some instances word-for-word translations have more interpretation than some paraphrases. The question is not whether to interpret the words of the text, but to what degree, and the line between “accurate” and “not-accurate” is not clearly drawn. And keep in mind we are still talking about the text itself at this point, not on a commentary about it.

Anyone familiar with translation knows that the translator can insert a high degree of bias into a text without technically violating any rules. If the semantic range of a word is wide enough, the meaning of a phrase can turn completely on which choice the translator makes. This can also be accomplished by arbitrarily choosing where to break a sentence. For example, Eph. 5 begins a list of ways in which believers can serve each other and be “filled with the Spirit”. The last item in the list (which is much more apparent in the Greek) is vs. 21: submit to one another. This last item introduces a sub-list, made of sentence fragments that all point to vs. 21. But vs. 22 has no verb of its own; it gets it from 21. Yet English translations break the sentence completely and add a verb to the next. That is, they render it this way:

Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, submit to your own husbands…

instead of how it is in the Greek:

… submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ, wives, to your own husbands…

See the huge difference in meaning? The first makes a break from the mutual submission of vs. 21, inserts a verb into 22, and thus makes the reader think that only wives are being told to submit. But if we leave the text alone, it tells us that what wives do to husbands is merely a subset of what all believers do to all other believers. And it’s all legitimate according to the rules of translation. Misleading, but technically permissible. So one still wonders what it is about word-for-word translations that make them inherently more “scriptural” than those that strive above all to get the meaning of the original across.

And while it is commendable for the author to ask the reader to be emotionally self-controlled in such studies, one must remember that bias is a universal human trait, even among translators. Offense over disagreement is unavoidable, with some being all too eager to assert their opinions as facts, and others as being so thin-skinned that the slightest disagreement is regarded as a hostile attack. If, as the author recommends, we are to treat this material as we would if in a court of law, let us use the full force of cross-examination upon it, for a solid argument fears no such scrutiny.

Background– The author admits that we have none of the original manuscripts of the Bible, and makes an excursion into the realm of textual criticism. But I see another false dilemma here: that there are still only two primary “families” of New Testament manuscripts (MS). More recent scholarship recognizes a much more complex history of transmission, and many alleged cases of omission are being shown to be cases of addition; that is, where some MS were thought to have left off a verse or two, it is now known that other MS added them instead. One’s preconceptions often have more to do with which MS they prefer than the actual science of textual criticism.

The author goes on to compare the two “families” on the basis of agreement (how alike they are) and quantity (how many there are). But again, these are only two of many factors to consider, and scholars still debate over which basic group is more likely to be faithful to the originals. I recommend The Origin of the Bible (edited by Philip Comfort) for a concise but fair overview of the matter of textual families. The consensus of the scholars cited therein differs from the claims of this author, in that the significance of discrepancies is not held to be nearly as fatal as he would like the reader to believe.

How did we get here?– In saying “we’ll see how this situation arose, and crucially, where the truth of the matter lies”, the author proposes to solve and settle that which has been unsolvable among scholars for generations. But his account of the history of MS transmission needs to be held up to peer review by acknowledged Greek scholars, such as those in the book I mentioned, so I will only highlight a few things.

Under Step 1… Burgon’s Side, he is quoted with the same opinion Mr. Peterson holds: that the usual rules of textual criticism can be set aside for the Bible, simply because it’s the Bible. Yet it is those very standards that show us the divine authorship of scripture, for no matter how powerful the microscope that has been set upon it, the integrity of the Bible as ancient literature is a witness all its own. We need not engage in “special pleading” to bolster this fact. One of the strongest apologetic planks upon which the Bible stands is how well it holds up under standard analysis, a fact which sets it apart among all religious texts and even many ancient classical works.

Now whether or not this one scholar Peterson seems to rely upon heavily is breaking any rules is not the point. Instead, I challenge the inference that non-Bible texts are handled any differently. What he seems to think is special treatment for the Bible, really isn’t special at all but standard. A competent scholar in modern times would not tamper with an ancient text or they’d quickly be exposed as a fraud by their peers, and as I will show later, an unbeliever is far less motivated to alter the Bible than a believer would be. There are also many more eyes on these studies today than ever before in history, but Peterson keeps trying to steer the reader to think that unbelieving scholars are not to be trusted; i.e., they are unprofessional.

It is clear by the time we get into Step 2 that Peterson has already decided that “Hort’s Side” was wrong because it viewed textual criticism as equally valid for scripture as for any other book. This, Peterson implies, is evidence of a low view of scripture. In the conclusion of this section he even quotes Stalin (“quantity has a quality all its own”) in support of his favorite source, Burgon.

Before moving on to step 3 Peterson asks the reader to “allow the possibility that your current position on this topic is mistaken to some extent”. This is quite bold, to say the least. Why say it unless one is already convinced his argument cannot be refuted? The reader will surely have noticed as I have that Peterson has quoted one person’s opinion extensively, and on a topic like this, such narrowness is not giving the reader a great deal of confidence in his claims.

The pages following go into more arguments based upon these two “families”, and under c) we are told that “omission is what enemies of God would mostly employ”. But I would again challenge this assertion. For example, the Roman Catholic Church would surely have seen to it that many portions of scripture which stand in judgment of some of their teachings be excised, but instead, they added the Apocrypha. Peterson is thus slanting the reader away from any text “family” that tends to have more omissions. And though I would of course defer to recognized scholarship to say for sure, I question the objectivity with which Peterson has been portraying Hort’s arguments.

Under Step 5 we are told in point a) that “no true Christian would alter the Bible”. I have challenged this claim many times (ref. again the Pharisee series); in fact, the likelihood of alteration is much greater for those at least professing the faith, since others would have no interest in it. Why would a Hindu for example try to alter Christian sacred writings? For what gain? Do Christians try to omit parts of the Quran? This charge is groundless on its face. This isn’t a matter of whether the early believers knew they were handling scripture, but whether they would be so bold as to alter any text at all for sinister reasons. (Of course Peterson would emphasize that he said true Christian, but here again we’re talking about fallible humans who can think they are doing a faithful service to God by, for example, adding descriptive phrases to tell us what was significant about the Pool of Salome.)

And if history tells us anything, it is that the people most respected as guarding a sacred text have the most opportunity and motivation to alter it to suit them, since they would be above suspicion. So the best-preserved ancient MS would thus be more likely to come from the “official” line, and thus carry a higher risk of deliberate tampering. As I document in the Pharisee articles here, even respected evangelicals have been caught altering the Greek text of the United Bible Societies to suit a preconceived bias.

But Peterson’s insinuation in c) that “this [Hort's] rule is a dream for Satan and his Bible corrupters” smacks of typical “King James Only” abusive rhetoric. In a relatively brief span in this paper, Hort has been transformed from one of two representative viewpoints into an evil minion of the devil. This is un-emotional and dispassionate scholarship? Perhaps Mr. Peterson had this caustic remark in mind when he first cautioned the reader to hold back.

Finally, Peterson asks Where do these steps lead?, and the reader by this time has already figured it out. As I mentioned in my analysis of Part One, it matters not how elaborate the house that may be built upon a foundation of sand. But even in this secondary structure we see additional flaws and a determination to vilify the Hort approach as not only inferior but dastardly. He further smears all who disagree with his conclusions as “deliberate counterfeiting by people opposed to the truth”. And in following papers he promises to malign Hort even more.

Peterson’s last page goes on to judge the motives of “people who employ this line of reasoning” by asking, “How much blatant corruption to [sic] the very Word of God is acceptable?”. Then he adds, “I say the following with all humility… the key arguments in this article seem inescapable”, and that “only false brothers and those incapable of grasping the truth would reject the main conclusions in this document”.

Reader, I don’t know about you, but I must question the intentions of one so arrogant as to declare that any and all who disagree with him are “false” and “incapable of grasping truth”. Even the editor of the paper piles on, adding that ” I anticipate this material will provoke a heated reaction from the enemy and his minions”. Wow. And the final insult is in the little box at the end: “Dusty welcomes your comments”. I think not.

Seriously, now I’m done with this guy. I won’t read any more of his diatribes.

(Part One)

Translation and Interpretation

Posted on by

Beginning at this link is a series of articles purporting to analyze “the Bible Versions Debate”. Since many believe as the author does that the bulk of “modern” translations are faulty or deliberately misleading, I thought it worthwhile to examine this issue in detail. But please note that this issue, like others I’ve mentioned before, is not going to be solved to anyone’s satisfaction with a few blog posts. And at this time I’m not sure whether I’ll go on to the succeeding parts.

Part One

Introduction – The author, Dusty Peterson, intends to focus on which English translations are best, not to compare with other languages or debate the claim of the Bible being the Word of God. Reliability of the text is paramount since we base our faith upon its teachings. So Peterson sees the core of this study as condensed onto two areas: determining the original readings, and how to translate them.

Opening Comments – Peterson begins with the claim that though this topic requires “a lot of knowledge”, little such knowledge is required for the first issue to be addressed: whether we should use formal equivalence or “word for word”, or dynamic equivalence or “thought for thought”, which Peterson calls “interpretation”. Yet there is always interpretation involved, even in assembling dictionaries. So this first issue is really a false dilemma; it is not between interpretation and non-interpretation since the latter is impossible.

Peterson defines dynamic equiv. as “an attempt to bridge the cultural divide between the ancient Middle-East and modern-day man.” But this is not true exclusively between ancient and modern cultures, but between any cultures. It is literally impossible to translate from one modern language into another without any interpretation or rephrasing of figures of speech. In an example referenced here (more discussion here), a German cartoon has robots looking at a crashed car, and one of them says (in German of course) “I can’t see oil!”. It makes no sense as a word-for-word English translation. But if we recognize the idiom, we translate it as “I can’t stand the sight of oil!” and relate it to “I can’t stand the sight of blood!”. Then we get the joke.

Clearly, then, there is a balance between the two extremes that we need to find if we are to translate correctly, and for the Bible, this is of the utmost importance. So we need first of all to ditch the false dilemma and look for that elusive balance point, which of course does require “knowledge”, and of many things. If the series of articles only intends to play one extreme against the other, the question about which English translation to use will never be fully answered.

Translation and Interpretation – Peterson shows bias against the dynamic method by saying “Let’s start by looking at some apparent difficulties associated with writing an extreme dynamic equivalence translation (i.e. a paraphrase) and then calling the result ‘Scripture’.” That is, if anyone uses more interpretation than he deems fit, the translation cannot be called ‘scripture’ at all. He defines a paraphrase as somehow not “God’s specific words”, but we will see that the formal method would not qualify either.

Peterson then emphasizes “the actual words” at length, apparently ignoring the fact that we do not have “the actual words” at all, but only copies of the original writings. We are dealing here with probability, not certainty, and relying upon the science of textual criticism to increase the probability that we have an accurate copy. Peterson does not disagree, but my point is this: if the “actual words” are so very critical, we would have expected the originals to be divinely preserved. That God has not seen fit to preserve them takes a lot of the foundation out from under the claim that dynamic equiv. is somehow not a valid translation method, or at least not one that can be called ‘scripture’.

Another issue, which I’m sure Peterson will get to eventually, is that the Masoretic text of the OT is not the original Hebrew at all. No Hebrew text before the first century has survived; the oldest manuscripts are in other languages. I’ve gone into more detail on this in my earlier “Pharisee” articles (search on that word) and so will not repeat it here.

Peterson’s discussion on “the words” seems to ignore figures of speech, esp. the equivalent of “take my word for it”. When God says “listen to my words”, he is saying “listen to me”, not “learn ancient Hebrew so you can memorize the syllables”. And in saying “The word ‘translate’ has a specific definition. It means ‘to turn from one language to another’, not ‘from one culture to another’ or ‘from one era to another’”, he shows lack of understanding of the translation process. It is never done in a cultural or historical vacuum, as the German joke I mentioned illustrates. If translation could be reduced to a mechanical conversion from one dictionary to another, we’d all be able to read ancient Greek or Hebrew without the need for any education at all, yet clearly this is not the case in reality. He also commits the etymological fallacy in restricting the word “translation” to its constituent parts.

An Argument Used for Paraphrases – Peterson says “It is said that the disciples who wrote the four Gospels rendered only their interpretations of what Jesus taught, rather than our Saviour’s actual words.”. But since Jesus’ words were, as far as we can determine, spoken in Aramaic and recorded in Greek by Hebrew thinkers, the “actual words” of Jesus are only infrequently quoted. For example, in the account of Jesus’ raising a girl to life (Mark 5:41), we see that Jesus actually said “Talitha cumi”, which Mark then interprets for the Greek reader. We could also cite Jesus’ words on the cross, which the onlookers mistook for “He’s calling Elijah”.

In point (1) Peterson lifts verses out of context in order to disparage “interpretation” by saying “2 Peter 1:20 and 2 Timothy 3:16 indicate that no part of God’s Word came about by man’s ‘interpretation’.” The former verse, in context, clearly communicates that the prophets themselves did not make up stories but faithfully conveyed God’s messages, and the latter has no bearing on the matter of interpretation, when that word is properly understood.

In point (2) he disagrees with the view that the Gospel writers interpreted what they saw by saying “they could simply be due to…”, which is just an opinion; what each Gospel writer was emphasizing is itself a matter of “interpretation”. He argues that it must have been the Holy Spirit directing each writer to give a different perspective, and I have no problem with that. But to say that this depends upon our having a wooden word-for-word translation does not follow.

In point (3) he argues that interpretation is not the example we see in scripture, yet in addition to the scriptures already cited, we know of a very famous one where Matthew cites Isaiah 7:14: “The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel which means ‘God with us’”. So even Matthew could interpret the OT Hebrew name into a Greek phrase.

In sub-point (i) he engages in the fallacy of special pleading by saying that even if all his preceding arguments are invalid, this one makes up for them: though the scripture itself uses interpretation, we can’t. And I agree that the canon is closed, but this has no bearing on the issue of translation. In sub-point (ii) he labels our translations as “interpretations of interpretations”, which depends on accepting his earlier points in the first place.

If, as Peterson says, the bottom line is to have faith (a point nobody disputes), then why do we need him or anyone else to tell us how to translate the Bible? If he admits that the Spirit interprets it for us, then why the need for fallible human intermediaries, who will be unable to avoid interpreting as they go along? If all interpretation is necessarily “not scripture”, then we must not translate at all, since it is impossible to do so without interpreting.

The Intricacy of God’s Word – In this section Peterson admits that the Bible is complex and makes frequent use of figures of speech, yet says ” Much of this can be obscured if we merely interpret what we consider to be the central point of the text and don’t properly take these other elements into account.” This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what it means to translate. If we truly take all pertinent elements into account, we will interpret; there is no avoiding this. The steps of translation include using documentary evidence to determine the semantic range of each word, the figures of speech, the habits of the individual writer, and the context of society and history to finally arrive at the meaning of a given phrase or document in modern English. There are interpretations at every step. So why is only Peterson permitted to interpret what these figures of speech mean, for example?

He then proceeds to describe the multidimensional nature of the whole of scripture, yet seems to keep missing the irony of how this debunks his arguments against interpretation. To close this section with the statement “It is absolutely critical, for instance, that prophetic material be translated word-for-word” only supports the need for interpretation, rather than dismissing it. Does he think that dynamic versions try to change, for example, a lamb into a lion, or Jesus into a mere enlightened human being? Those would be instances of altering or tampering, but none of the recognized dynamic versions do such a thing. I would challenge Mr. Peterson to provide examples from, say, the NIV which fundamentally alter such things.

No one disputes Peterson’s description of the beauty of God’s Word, but he doesn’t seem to understand that not one translation of any document in the world, and esp. the Bible, can fail to “lose something in the translation”. Unless we are fluent in the ancient languages, there is much we will never see. But again, had God deemed it necessary to preserve this beauty, he’d never have sanctioned any translation at all— and it is well known that the NT writers used the LXX (Greek translation) for their OT scriptures.

To Sum Up – Peterson describes scripture as “mind-blowingly intricate”, which is actually a devastating rebuttal to his thesis against interpretation. He also seems a bit sloppy with this word, equivocating and redefining it as needed. He admits that scripture “employs brilliant creative-writing techniques to get across extra meaning” but wants us to convey it in English with a wooden literalism! It simply isn’t possible to get all the beauty and complexity of one language into another without interpretation.

In saying “we are fooling ourselves if we think we can write a better Bible than He. Again, we need to have faith”, Peterson burns a straw man by insinuating that those who interpret are trying to one-up God. Clearly he had “interpreted” their motives and judged their hearts before the study even began, and falsely contrasts interpretation with faith, as if the two are mutually exclusive.

In some apparent afterthoughts, the “sum up” needed additional explanation, which Peterson does under NT Quotes of the OT. But he only repeats his earlier “special pleading” and seems to be unaware of the fact that while the NT writers quoted the LXX, our OT is based upon the much later (post-NT) Masoretic. This by itself accounts for the lack of equivalence, and would have been a much better tack for his case. One really should do more extensive study before teaching so confidently on a topic like this.

But he goes on to question the “love of truth” of those who “interpret”, and even accuses God of deliberately being vague so as to test people! (see the second paragraph there) He should remember that scripture tells us why God is sometimes vague, in 1 Cor. 2:8 and Mt. 13:10–19. Again, this has nothing to do with “interpretation” as Peterson defines it. He makes bold claims of the evidence for his view as being “unambiguous”, and continues to miss the irony of appealing to the Spirit while writing this long series to fill in whatever the Spirit is apparently unable to provide. No one has forgotten that this is God’s Word (emph. his); this again is a slam on those who disagree with him. He does interpret, everyone interprets, and there is no escaping this fact.

In his final section under “Is it really a problem”, Peterson continues to judge the motives of those who “interpret” as having bias he does not have, as fostering the creation of too many versions and thus causing confusion (can’t we say that about preachers and denominations and bloggers as well?), as tempting people “to abdicate their personal responsibility before God for how they interpret God’s words (emph. mine), and for undermining belief in the inspiration of scripture. These are very serious charges to make against entire groups of people he does not know, esp. since these are fellow believers. He is not arguing here against their beliefs but their motives; ergo he is playing the part of the Holy Spirit while denying this to those who “interpret”.

To top it all off, Peterson boldly proclaims that “translations using dynamic equivalence are fundamentally unbiblical in their own right. (And this should cause the biggest discomfort for any true believer in Jesus.)” Wow. And even in his summary of his summary (“Conclusion”), he accuses all who “interpret” as only being interested in easy comprehension. Of course he means something on the order of, say, an 8th grade education, but isn’t the goal of all translation to make foreign words comprehensible? And how are “readers to check whether or not their favoured version of the Bible uses a degree of human interpretation” with the “little knowledge” Peterson says it takes to base one’s judgment? By the Spirit, or by Peterson’s opinions?

Well, I’ve come to the conclusion that there is no need to examine the rest of the series, as even the most elaborate house built on sand will wash away with the next high tide. This foundation is cracked and warped on many levels. I would instead encourage the reader to study scholarly conversations on these issues, at places such as The Better Bibles Blog and the b-Greek mailing list archives available by search engine.

Balancing Act

Posted on by

At another blog the question is asked, “What are the signs that we have a perfect blend and balance of both grace and truth?” While neither term is defined there, it would be helpful to do so, especially for anyone unfamiliar with their usage in “the churches”. We can’t answer the question without knowing exactly what it’s asking.

Truth, to the Christian, is whatever God has said or done, whatever He has told us in His Word. Grace is simply favor bestowed from the greater to the lesser, and in particular, from God to people. But in recent decades, truth has been equated with cold, dead “doctrine”, while grace has been turned into a mystical (some say irresistible) force or, as a good friend of mine calls it, “totalitarian niceness”. Since the question on the table makes no sense if we use the Biblical definitions, I must presume that the modern ones are what it meant. After all, what need is there to find a balance between the favor of God and His truth?

Proceeding on that presumption, this balance is something I’ve written about many times: the need to keep both doctrine and love. Many want to discard one or the other, and when they do, that’s what makes doctrine cold and dead, and love/peace shallow and accepting of almost every sin. Doctrine, the teachings of the NT, is what makes peace possible, because our unity must be around central truths: Jesus, the One True God in human form, died for our sins and rose again, and anyone who puts their trust in Him alone for the purpose of being reconciled with God is saved. There are no other gods, no other Names, no other ways or paths, regardless of sincerity or good works. This is the most foundational, non-negotiable bedrock of our faith, such that to deny any part of it is to deny the whole (see my documents here under README for scriptural backing; this is not something I made up). It is not those who hold to this Doctrine that cause division, but those who deny or try to compromise it.

But many cannot reconcile this with “niceness”. They presume that to call someone else’s beliefs wrong is to be “not nice”, to be unloving, to be against peace, to be conceited and narrow. They will not tolerate the judging of sin among us, though it is plainly directed in such passages as 1 Cor. 5 (sinners though we are, we MUST judge those on “the inside”, our fellow believers). They see every instance of telling sinners they are lost as acts of hatred instead of loving the lost enough to warn them.

But above all, they cannot tolerate anyone expressing anything in a manner they deem “not nice”. This is the “totalitarian” part, because only they can decree where the wavy, blurry line is drawn. If you use enough syrup you can hurl the most vile insults and still be affirmed by others for your love and tolerance, while others, hurling insults or not, are condemned and treated as spiritual infants. Part of the problem is that the syrup proponents don’t always realize what they’re saying; they are blind to their own use of insults. When others respond to such subtlety and call it what it is, the “syrups” get indignant because they don’t see what they did, even after it’s pointed out to them. I’ve seen it hundreds of times, and it goes a little something like this:

  • B. Blunt: Mormons are not Christians because they deny the essentials of the faith; they believe in millions of gods, for example.
  • C. Syrup: How can you hate such nice people? How can you be so narrow? You fundies are why people turn away from Jesus, who never said anything harsh… well, at least he was only harsh to Pharisees like you. You should try meditating as the Desert Fathers showed us, and then you’ll be loving and peaceful. I’d be happy to teach you, because I care.
  • B. Blunt: Now who is being hateful? Here you are calling me a Pharisee just because I stood up for the fact that there is only one God anywhere in existence, and those who don’t believe that are lost. Can’t you tolerate me just as you tolerate Mormonism? It seems to me that the real problem here is that truth is not as important in your eyes as niceness.
  • C. Syrup: See? There you go again, spreading your fundy hatred! You need to repent and examine your heart.
  • The Syrup Cheerleading Squad: Yes, amen! We love everybody (except you). We aren’t harsh and intolerant. We just live the example (and keep affirming their lost beliefs for the rest of our lives) and let God do the rest. Boo on Pharisees who actually tell people they’re lost!
  • B. Blunt: Aren’t you being unloving by giving the lost the impression that they will go to heaven just by sincerely practicing their religion? And once again, why aren’t you tolerating fundies? Why do you tell US directly that we’re “lost”? Why not do to us fundies what you do to Mormons: just live the example and never tell us we’re wrong? Why the double standard?
  • C. Syrup: I’ll bet you stay up at night thinking of ways to attack people. I am loving and tolerant, as anyone can see (“Amen!” says the Squad). Learn to be like me, that’s my example. I had to use words for you because you’re… just… so… negative!
  • B. Blunt: Learn to be like you?? You mean I should insult you and be a hypocrite?
  • The Syrup Cheerleading Squad: Boo, boo on the Pharisee!! See how hateful and bitter these fundies are!? Away with them!

This double standard, this committing of the same alleged faults as others, is the sign of imbalance in any Christian community. It is expressed in what we see in most Christian blogs: bickering, backstabbing, lecturing, accusing, judging (by BOTH sides) in all the wrong places. (And for a REAL example of all this, see The Reformers and Their Stepchildren, or my summary of it).

But silencing half the Body will not bring balance, it will only cause disease. Decreeing the other half hateful isn’t working either, quite obviously. Declaring your own side’s standards to be The Standard will never work. As long as doctrine and niceness are seen as hopelessly incompatible, the Body will never be in balance. Love without doctrine is easily corrupted and diluted, while doctrine without love is cold and legalistic. But remember, love as defined in scripture is not something that sees no evil / hears no evil, but cares enough to warn when danger approaches. And doctrine is not our personal set of convictions but the foundations of the faith, the facts about Jesus and salvation.

Instead, try what I’m still working toward: completely ignoring the style of other’s words, looking instead to the message. So you think somebody insulted you and the evidence is obvious; “why not rather be wronged” (1 Cor. 6:7)? So you can’t stand fundies; why not treat them as you’d treat Mormons or Muslims? Why respect the enemies of your faith more than your own brothers and sisters? So what if you think all the disrespect is coming from them, let’s see you practice what you preach. And by the same token, the fundies need to do learn to look past the double standards and concentrate on the arguments. Don’t ape the name-calling and put-downs, even if the other side still does it. God is the One keeping score.

Let people talk; stop the control freak mentality and just present your case. Then there will be balance.

ADDED LATER: This balance will NOT be characterized by a lack of disagreement. There is room for that in the Body, just as “the eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I don’t need you!’” Disagreement is not the problem, but only the attempt to force others to agree, even to walk and talk like us. Let the disagreements fly, but not the rancor, surgar-coated or plain.

Fundyphobes

Posted on by

Well, if I can be called an Islamophobe, homophobe, or any other phobe just because I disagree with someone’s opinion, then I can call anyone who hates fundies (meaning fundamentalists, for those who have just arrived from another planet) a fundyphobe.

Funny thing though… you can’t get a consensus out of them as to the definition. That is, what exactly are the fundamental (couldn’t resist) characteristics that make this group— evidently lower than suicide bombers, pagans, or traitors— deserving of the prolific and near-universal ire of even the self-described “tolerant”? What are the essentials? After all, if I’m to be called the F word, I have a right to know what that is, and what qualifies anyone to say so. Please explain to me why it’s okay to bash, mock, and otherwise spit upon anyone despicable enough to earn this title, but not for those awful fundies to take even the mildest critical tone when discussing the shortcomings of arguments that reduce the Bible to amusing fiction while far less-attested scraps are paraded around as The Truth.

Now don’t go trying to throw your higher edjamakashun at me or get all indignant over what I must have meant by that last statement. I just want a definition. One that won’t change according to what you ate for breakfast, or who you’re talking to (or about). And if what I just wrote offends you, I declare you unfit to lecture me on this or any other topic.

So how about it? Can anyone supply a consistent, dispassionate, Christ-honoring definition of a fundy so I can know whether I should shout “Unclean!” if I want to post in some “Christian” blog?

[/rant]

Be-Ware of Assertions!

Posted on by

Recently I came across a list of “ten reasons God designed there to be male headship” by “complementarian” Bruce Ware. I will list and comment, because it’s a good study in how people eisegete (read into) the scriptures their preconceived agenda.

  1. The order of creation, with the man created first, indicates God’s design of male headship in the male/female relationship (Gen 2; 1 Tim 2:13).

    2. There is no such stated or implied “headship” anywhere in Gen. 2 or 1 Tim. 2:13. These are the passages being debated, not undisputed ones. So this is an example of presuming the conclusion in the premises, or circular reasoning. The facts about the order of creation are just that: order, chronology. There is no hint of authority or rule between humans in the creation account at all. Instead, in Gen. 1:28 God explicitly gives both male and female rule over creation.

  2. The means of the woman’s creation as “out of” or “from” the man bears testimony also to the headship of the male in the relationship (Gen 2:23; 1 Cor 11:8).

    3. Gen. 2:23 simply says Eve was made for Adam, nothing more. Verse 18 has God stating the first thing that is “not good”: that the man should be alone. So the man needed help, and Eve was it. The Hebrew indicates one who stands facing another, an equal or comrade-in-arms, a partner. And the Hebrew word for “help”, ezer, is used often of God Himself, proving that the helper is equal to or greater than the one in need. And the fact that Eve was made from Adam proves her equality to him, being of exactly the same “flesh and bone”.

  3. While both man and woman are fully the image of God (Gen 1:26-28), yet the woman’s humanity as “image of God” is established as she comes from the man. Adam names her “isha” (woman) because she was “taken out of ish (man)” (Gen 2:23; cf. 5:3).

    4. Both male and female were made in the image of God directly (1:27) and there is no fine print or disclaimer to state any difference between them in this regard. Ware’s reference to 5:3 is to the terminology of children being made in the likeness of their parents– NOT their spouses! Eve came from Adam but she was not his child, so the reference is meaningless to prove Ware’s point. There is simply no way to squirm out of the plainly stated fact that Eve was made directly in the image of God exactly as Adam. His naming of her as “woman” is never, anywhere in the Bible, called an act of authority. Not once. In fact, Abraham’s slave Hagar named God (Gen. 16:13), but who would take that as an act of authority?

  4. The woman was created for the man’s sake or to be Adam’s helper (Gen 2:18, 20).

    5. Yes– because Adam needed help, and Eve could provide whatever he lacked. This in no way indicates inferiority of position or of being a mere assistant. No scripture ever portrays Eve as being inferior to Adam. The assertion being imposed here onto scripture is that helper must always mean assistant, and some complementarians have gone so far as to make God inferior to man when He helps him! (see This Article)

  5. Man (not woman) was given God’s moral commandment in the garden; and woman learned God’s moral command from the man (Gen 2:16-17).

    6. This is pure fiction. No place in scripture ever says Eve lied or was mistaken when she said that GOD told her the command (Gen. 3:2). Eve never attributes the command to Adam or as coming through Adam.

  6. Man named the woman both before and after the entrance of sin (Gen 2:19-20, 23, 3:20).

    7. So? Does scripture say this was an act of authority? No, it does not.

  7. Satan approached the woman (not the man) in the temptation, usurping God’s design of male-headship (Gen 3; 1 Tim 2:14).

    8. Scripture never states why the serpent approached the woman, but it does say Adam was standing right there next to her (Gen. 3:6) during the entire temptation. He said nothing; he did nothing; he showed no authority or backbone at all. There is no hint of “male headship” in the passage whatsoever; Ware simply made this up.

  8. Although the woman sinned first, God comes to the man first, holding him (not her) primarily responsible for their sin (Gen 3:8-9; Rom 5:12-19; 1 Cor 15:22).

    9. Both Adam and Eve were directly held responsible for only their own sin; Adam was never held to account for Eve’s sin. But if Ware is right, then he just shot down his own assertion that Eve didn’t get the command from God but from Adam! She could not have SINNED against anyone but God (Psalm 51:4), so she can only be charged with sinning first if she had gotten the command from God. And was Adam not sinning as he failed to exercise his alleged responsibility for / authority over Eve, who never tempted Adam but simply handed him the fruit, which he ate without hesitation?

  9. The curses on the man and woman indicate the fundamental purposes for which each was created, respectively (Gen 3:16-19).

    10. No, they indicate the difference in their sins and responses to God. Adam sinned with his eyes wide open and blamed both Eve and God for it (Gen. 3:12), and never tried to complain that Eve had usurped his alleged authority. God never said anything to Adam about failing in his responsibilities to lead and protect. But Eve stated the truth: that the serpent had beguiled her and so she ate (Gen. 3:13). She never tried to complain that Adam had failed to instruct her properly about the command, or that he failed to protect her. There is not one shred of support from scripture for Ware’s assertion.

  10. The Trinity’s equality and distinction of Persons is mirrored in male-female equality and distinction (1 Cor 11:3).

    11. Distinction, yes– hierarchy, no! Ware can make inferences till the cows come home but the fact remains that all members of the Trinity make up one God– not three, as the ancient Arian heresy being revived today claims.

This all shows the great lengths to which those with power will go to keep it. It is a pathetic display of scripture twisting and pride in the flesh, neither of which are Christian virtues. They should be ashamed of themselves, and will be held to strict account for it (James 3:1). Such low views of women in spite of what the Bible actually says has more in common with Mormonism and Islam than the One True God of the Bible!

Curiouser and Curiouser

Posted on by

Here is 2 John 1:1a in several standard Bible translations:

ISV
From: The Elder To: The chosen lady and her children, whom I genuinely love, and not only I but also all who know the truth,
NASB
The elder to the chosen lady and her children, whom I love in truth; and not only I, but also all who know the truth,
KJV
The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth;
YLT
The Elder to the choice Kyria, and to her children, whom I love in truth, and not I only, but also all those having known the truth,

The bolded words above are translated from the Greek word kuria. If you look it up in Strong’s and look at all uses of it, here is what you see:

2959 Kuria koo-ree’-ah
feminine of kurioV – kurios 2962; Cyria, a Christian woman:–lady.

2960 kuriakos koo-ree-ak-os’
from kurioV – kurios 2962; belonging to the Lord (Jehovah or Jesus):–Lord’s.

2961 kurieuo ko-ree-yoo’-o from kurioV – kurios 2962;
to rule:–have dominion over, lord, be lord of, exercise lordship over.

2962 kurios koo’-ree-os from kuros (supremacy);
supreme in authority, i.e. (as noun) controller; by implication, Master (as a respectful title):– God, Lord, master, Sir.

2963 kuriotes koo-ree-ot’-ace from kurioV – kurios 2962;
mastery, i.e. (concretely and collectively) rulers:–dominion, government.

2964 kuroo koo-ro’-o from the same as kurioV – kurios 2962;
to make authoritative, i.e. ratify:–confirm.

I don’t know about you, but there’s something fishy about that first one. For some odd reason, it only gets special treatment if it is in the feminine form. All other uses speak of lordship, mastery, control, dominion, and government. But somehow, only one is treated either as a woman’s name as in the YLT (or simply transliterated because the truth is too hard to bear!) or is translated “lady”.

Eh?

The only 2 places in the entire NT where we see the English word “lady” are here in 2 John (vs. 1 and 5). What does anyone base this on? Where is the justification for getting the meaning “lady” out of the base word “lord” (unless hedging by claiming “lady” is in the sense of “lords and ladies”– hardly modern or common useage!)?

It can’t be –gasp!– gender bias, can it?? I don’t care how many translations do this or how long they’ve been at it, they have to justify their special treatment of this word from what is known about Greek words in the first century.

Seriously, if anyone out there knows where to find the scholarship that supports kuria to mean “lady” to first century Greeks, I’d be most interested in seeing it.

ADDED LATER: The usual commentaries seem split on this, and they argue against each other’s position. There is also one that argues against John’s likelihood of addressing anyone as “master” by virtue of Jesus being called “the Master”, but I find the logic in that very weak. After all, believers are called “holy ones” and so is Jesus, and some believers are called “masters” (e.g. Eph. 6:5). Again, we turn to Occam’s Razor in the midst of many theories, and the simplest interpretation is that John is addressing a woman who has leadership of a community of believers (“children”).

If John is just writing to a family he knows, why did he not address it to the man? And why was this letter considered holy scripture and preserved with all the other scriptures? The simplest view would be that since the early believers considered it holy scripture, then it must concern the community of believers at large, making this woman the leader of that group.

Expelled

Posted on by

Yes, I went to see the movie this weekend. The atheists/evolutionists shrieked and howled to keep people from going, but that only made me want to see it more.

And it was worth the price. The whole purpose of the film was to start tearing down the wall of bias, so to speak. Just as the Berlin Wall’s fall was begun with individuals with hammers and ropes, so also the wall of academic bias will only come down if the people take matters into their own hands and oppose the elitists. Yet the critics hate the idea of academic freedom with such deep religious fervor that they could only burn numerous straw men in frustration. They made up other motives for Stein and other topics for the film because the real motives and purpose were just too revealing.

Many critics, of course before they even saw the film, blasted it as dangerous, stupid, religious, and a hundred other things. The atheists in the film whine that they were misrepresented, even though nobody ever denied the purpose of the interviews was to address academic bias in science. They proved this bias exists; they just didn’t want anyone to find out. They even screamed that the audience in the film’s lecture scenes wasn’t really just college students but included actors– as if a film can’t have actors in it! Stein never tried to portray the auditorium as an actual speaking engagement to students.

I especially enjoyed the way Stein’s simple question, “Where did that come from?”, made Dawkins eventually concede that life on earth couldn’t have begun by accident. Of course, he still insisted that it began “in a Darwinian fashion” someplace, anyplace, because there just can’t be a God. In other words, science knows life could not have arisen by chance here, so they simply invent different laws of physics for different parts of the universe, then want us to believe that The Answer is “out there” and we just haven’t discovered it yet. (Which sounds eerily like Darwin’s faith in the eventual discovery of transitional fossils.) They have absolute faith in Out There, as long as it doesn’t involve an intelligent being– unless of course the being is also evolved and just smarter than us. Which makes us repeat the question, “Where did that come from?” Atheism cannot answer even the most basic, fundamental question of existence. And their god Evo the Magical wants the right to ignore whatever it can’t deal with (origins).

Yet even given primordial soup (and the whole kitchen for that matter), evo still can’t even show the Origin of Species. It can’t explain how the alleged protocell ever turned into anything else, much less how any creature turned into any other creature. But they want us to believe, and not to question them, that magical things happen all the time, like fish growing legs and becoming reptiles and dinos turning into chickens. They don’t want us to know that in spite of millions of generations of mutated fruit flies, they still wound up with fruit flies. They want us to believe that the canyon that formed from the aftermath of the eruption of Mt. St. Helens in no way throws doubt on how long it took for the Grand Canyon to form, in spite of the fact that the only difference between the two is size. Both have many layers of rock, yet the new canyon was formed in hours, days, and months.

The film showed clearly that there is much bias, and little to no freedom, in academia. Leading atheists and scientists are exposed as making a mockery of the scientific method, which is to put observation and testing before interpretation. They begin with religious faith in Evo the Magical and ex-communicate any heretics. They even go so far as to fire anyone who merely mentions Intelligent Design in a lecture, even if they’re not promoting it! That is pure fear, not science. Fear and hatred. Actual science has nothing to fear or hide, yet the controllers of our scientific community will use courts and Gestapo tactics to silence all who would apply the scientific method to their theories.

So the film did achieve at least one purpose. It exposed the stifling of academic freedom in science. But only time will tell whether it achieved its bigger goal of prompting the public to demand that the “wall” preventing science to be only that and not a religious platform for atheism must come down. We must not let these pseudo-scientific religious freaks keep holding back real scientific progress. Only those with something to hide fear examination, and it isn’t the ID or Creationist movements that try to silence opposition.

My Donation Dollars At Work

Posted on by

I am a charter-member of the AIG Creation Museum. I’ve been there before and after it officially opened, get their magazine, and wholeheartedly support YEC (young earth creationism). The museum is world-class and makes an extremely important public statement against the evolutionary religious dogma we’re all forced to learn. I highly recommend it and commend everyone who made it possible.

However…

In their Answers magazine, another quality product, they step outside the creationist box in two areas that greatly irritate me: Calvinism and Misogyny.

Of course they can put whatever they want in their magazine and I don’t have to like it. But neither do I have to support it with my donations. If they ever ask me why I stopped, this is it.

The Calvinism, though personally I find it reprehensible, isn’t heavily promoted beyond their gushing praise of books by Calvinist authors. I can tolerate that. But not the misogyny.

Example: In vol. 3 no. 2, page 40, we see it boldly stated that “Family government was introduced at the moment of Eve’s creation. Adam was to be the jurisdictional head of the family and Eve was to be a helper suitable for him“. Now nobody doubts that last part, but she was his equal, his “flesh and bones”, his rescuer so to speak– not his “assistant”. Check the Hebrew and even the LXX (noted in my Christian Egalitarian wiki and other documents here). But that nonsense about “jurisdictional head” is a big fat lie. There is no such jurisdiction before the Fall. There was no “family government”. Both were charged with “subduing the earth” and not one word is uttered or even implied about hierarchy of any kind. Like the Calvinist myth of “the death of man’s spirit”, pre-Fall hierarchy is imposed upon scripture without any shred of evidence.

Another spot is on page 86: “Yet in the functioning of the home, there is a chain of command: the husband is accountable to God, the wife is submissive to her husband“. They can’t state it any more clearly: woman does not directly report to God, but to a man! She can only get there through him, a sinner just like her. God “bosses” Jesus, who “bosses” man, who “bosses” woman. Somehow the submission to God that Jesus modeled only applies to women, but his rule over the church only applies to men. Nice.

I won’t repeat all I’ve written here that exposes and refutes such despicable pride and worse hermeneutics, except to say again that only the most brazen conceit can put half the human race under the other half. And the people at AIG go to such great lengths against “mere” racism! Such irony. They see the sinfulness of anyone thinking an ethnic group is beneath them, but turn around and so view the half of humanity with the “mitochondrial DNA”* (one of the articles in that issue).

I only wish they’d put half as much effort into defending the truths of scripture on this topic as they do on the six days of creation week.

*Added April 08: It turns out that mit. DNA being only from the mother was a myth. The scientific methods used to determine this were flawed. But I kept the expression here because it ties into the issue of the magazine I’m referring to. What I mean by it is just to refer to the female half of the human race.

Mary, Quite Contrary

Posted on by

No, not another post about Jesus’ earthly mother. This time it’s about the sister of Martha.

In Luke 10:38-42 we read this:

As Jesus and his disciples were on their way, he came to a village where a woman named Martha opened her home to him. She had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet listening to what he said. But Martha was distracted by all the preparations that had to be made. She came to him and asked, “Lord, don’t you care that my sister has left me to do the work by myself? Tell her to help me!”

“Martha, Martha,” the Lord answered, “you are worried and upset about many things, but few things are needed—or indeed only one. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her.”

Notice first of all that Mary sat at Jesus’ feet, listening. Jesus was called ‘rabbi’ by many, and to sit at a rabbi’s feet was to be identified as his student.1 Here is commentary from, of all places, bible.org:

In first-century Judaism rabbis often gathered groups of students, or disciples, who would sit at his feet to learn Torah (the Old Testament Law and its interpretation). This privilege of studying Torah under the tutelage of a rabbi was strictly for men only — and remained so until only quite recently. Men studied Torah, women did the housework — that was the way things were. Mary, by sitting at Jesus’ feet to listen to his “word,” was assuming the role of a rabbinical student, a role reserved in Judaism exclusively for men. Martha’s objection was not merely that she needed Mary’s help but that Mary had no business taking the man’s role and neglecting the woman’s role. That is why Jesus says that the thing Mary has chosen “will not be taken away from her”: Jesus is saying that Jewish restrictions on the roles of women will not be allowed to keep Mary from learning.

Even so, they quickly try to make this something less significant than it is, with the disclaimer “But we must not conclude too hastily that Jesus leveled all role distinctions between men and women. There is significant evidence to the contrary.” What is their “significant evidence to the contrary”?

First is the oft-repeated “Jesus’ 12 disciples were all men”. But there was prophetic significance to the fact that they were all males, since they were the New Testament equivalent of the sons of Israel (Jacob). It was also nearly impossible to get Jewish men to accept the testimony of women, and the first act of the new church was to be a witness of Jesus’ resurrection. (Women were actually first, but they witnessed to the disciples— who refused to believe them!) And we can’t forget that this is all a witness to Israel, before the Church. Yes, the 12 would be the church’s beginning, but they were chosen all out of Israel, not any gentiles. Is it less significant that they were all Jews, not just all males? Why? Is it significant also that none of them were rich or famous or powerful? Why? Bible.org calls these objections “not credible”, but I find their basis for this charge even less so.

Second, they grudgingly admit that Junia “could have been” a female apostle but brush this aside as “improbable” in spite of all evidence to the contrary. They even use the form “Junias”, which is male, but which they well know is not found in any ancient literature until centuries after the NT was completed. There is not one shred of evidence for “Junias”, and even Chrysostom clearly stated that the name was of a female apostle. This, they call “inconclusive”. I would demand they present their “conclusive” or even “almost could be” evidence for the name Junias and see what happens to their hubris.

These two things are their “significant evidence to the contrary”?? I would then throw their own words back in their faces: “Unless one is driven by ideological concerns to think otherwise…”. Who is it that is driven by ideology? Who is it that is willing to turn Junia into a man on zero evidence just to avoid admitting there was a female apostle? “… it seems most reasonable to infer that women were not intended by Jesus to be apostles” is only reasonable if you ignore the evidence that exists and make up some that doesn’t. They earlier referred to Jesus’ habit of overturning social norms when it suited them but now abandon this example of Jesus when it shows him to be doing something they don’t like. Basically, they say “Jesus overturned society’s rules about a lot– except of course for women, even though it could possibly look like maybe he sort of did”.

This is just lame: “Since Jesus nowhere in the Gospels challenges the concept of a husband’s authority over his wife…”. Arguing from silence now, are they? Jesus also never overturned slavery, or spoke out against pedophilia, or said anything about rape or torture. He didn’t even protest the Roman government or refuse to pay taxes. This means he was okay with all that?? And note the clear “authority over”; so much for “servant leadership”2.

The fact that the pejorative word “feminism” is in the title of the article says a lot about bible.org. It tells you what their agenda is before you even read a word of the article. But the ugly fact is that Jesus did treat Mary like any male student, he did choose women as witnesses, and there was at least one female apostle in the early church. Such women are just too “contrary” to male supremacists, who will defend their bias with imaginary facts and cover-ups if they must.

1One of the old Jewish sayings long predating Jesus was, “Let your house be a meetinghouse for the sages. Sit amidst the dust of their feet.” (Aboth 1:4) … For women to listen in while a rabbi taught the men of a crowd was likely not that unusual. But for a Jewish rabbi to allow a woman to sit at his feet, as his entire audience, was a shocking and even degrading visual symbol. (Source)

2In Part 2 of a series on “servant leadership”, bible.org says this: “We are given not only an exemplar but we are given the source of power to enable us. We are also given a grasp of who and Who’s [sic] we are which gives us a significance, a security and a satisfaction that empowers us to become servant leaders.” They neglected to specify that this must only apply to males, according to their theology. Are only males to take this example from Jesus? Why? Only Jews? Why not?

P.S. (added later today): What does this account of Mary the Student do to the popular idea of the Christian woman staying at home to do domestic chores? Jesus called her educational choice “better”. What would a male supremacist have said to Mary, compared with what Jesus said?

Tolerance

Posted on by

Here are some excerpts from Alains Newsletter exposing the true nature of today's so-called Tolerance.

The more sincere purveyors of these ideas aim to engender tolerance and civilized behavior, noble ambitions both. But if all values are equal, how can tolerance be better than intolerance? How can civility be better than barbarity? How can peaceful resolution be morally superior to violent action? The truth is that moral relativism and all the various expressions of it (i.e., multiculturalism, religious equivalency) are mere philoso-babble. They are products of emotion and a desire to buttress agendas, not that of credible intellectual inquiry. They are philosophies that collapse upon themselves under their own very, very modest weight. In the name of the principle of tolerance, we embrace the notion that principles don’t matter. What the professor was guilty of is akin to a physician observing all the symptoms of a certain cancer and saying that he won’t test for such disease because it’s not fashionable to do so. And, “an inquiry along these lines is hardly necessary, since a wide range of alternative explanations is on offer”? This reminds me of an old joke about a man who was informed by his dentist: “I have some good news and some bad news. The bad news is that you need to have two teeth pulled. The good news is that you can choose any two you want.” Professor, you’re guilty of academic malpractice.

But more significantly, dangerously and ominously, we have been trained to cast the discerning eye only inwards, never outwards. We have been cowed into believing that any recognition of unpleasant truths involving a culture or religion not our own is to descend into bigotry. Thus, like the three monkeys, we hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil. That is, unless that evil can be ascribed to the one group where casting blame gratuitously harms our cause, and that group is us. Otherwise, we often walk where angels fear to tread, blind as we are to the differences between Hell and hallowed ground.

The United States in the third millennium stands at a precipice, with the constant accommodation of foreign cultures and faiths driving her culture steadily toward extinction. Should we allow Islam or other incongruous forces to make further inroads into our nation? We’ll never know if we remain the truly blind, namely, those who will not see. We’ll never know if we’re experiencing an age of enlightenment, or trading the promised land for peace in our time.

Another excellent article can be found Here.