June 20, 2010

This will probably be my last response to NFQ. (More on that as we go along)

Recently (ok, recently in the context of writing things on the internet) she asked me a question about the story of Adam and Eve on my site. I found it an interesting question, and posted the start of the response.

I admitted up front that I had commented on the article, that I felt my comment was too long, and I also had to cut it short. I wasn’t satisfied with whether I had actually answered her question or not. I stated that maybe I would make it a multipart topic. In other words, I didn’t really say everything I wanted to say yet.

Maybe NFQ missed that comment (it happens), but she doesn’t treat me as though I said any of that in her response. I’ve said more than once that NFQ has been polite in her communications with me, and I’ve always appreciated that. But in her response post I suddenly can’t find myself saying that anymore.

I’ve suddenly come to realize, among other things, that NFQ is not in fact a critical thinker. She’s an internet debater. (Debate is not always critical thinking. In fact, it’s often NOT critical thinking. It’s just competition.)

I can see this by the way she unjustly half commented on half my post, glossing over one section while completely ignoring another. To read her post, one would think that I: agree English interpretations of the bible are bad, agree only biblical scholars can really read the bible, and that I forgot what the central aspect to her post was, and etc.

Now that’s me glossing over her post, and it’s really not that fair is it?

Let’s get in to what she had to say.

First, she comments that it is strange I even get into the topic of God lying when it has little to do with her central point of her post.

I’ll agree to the second part, partially, but not the first. NFQ stated in no unclear terms that God lied.

Call me a strange Christian, but when I see those words I have to back up and take a moment to examine them and wonder where it came from, how it came to the conclusion, and then address it. If I stated right now NFQ lied, she’d probably do the same over her own words. Now I’m not God, but I do believe in God (this very site is about God) so how should it really come to a surprise that I would feel the need to address the point?

I started to address this by getting into the fact that English interpretations of the Bible often end in the unfortunate but unavoidable fact that meaning can be missed, left out, or unclear. NFQ calls this a common excuse.

Well of course it’s common. It’s true. That doesn’t make it an excuse. That makes it true. This is the case of any sort of interpretation. Things do not always interpret well. Culture influences slang, importance, word choice, and more. Try to tell a joke in a different language to a different culture and you’ll quickly find out what I mean.

Small bodies of work that are interpreted often lose something in the process. So why should it come to a surprise that the Bible is no different?

What really shocked me though is what NFQ went on to suggest. I’ll quote that section just for clarity.

“The fact that most of the people reading the Bible today are reading a translation of a translation of a translation is definitely a problem, as far as conveying the (alleged) word of God is concerned.

If we agree on this much, (Canterrain’s note: I don’t actually agree on that assessment) though, we should move on to the next natural question: why is anyone reading the books of the Bible in anything other than the languages in which they were originally written? Teaching people the contents of the Bible in their own native languages seems like asking for trouble; you’re bound to misrepresent things and give them the wrong idea about God. Is it ever okay for me to read the Bible without the oldest known texts in front of me, and without years of training in ancient cultures and their languages’ idioms? It would seem not. It seems that only a very small percentage of people on the planet, real Biblical scholars, are at all qualified to read the Bible.”

This strikes me as funky, because NFQ comes off as the same person who probably would decry the church for at one point keeping the bible out of the common’s person hands by refusing to allow it to be interpreted into a language the common person could understand. (In fact, she has stated that “…religion was obviously fabricated in order to control people (sometimes for good and sometimes for bad).”)

Maybe NFQ is ok with the idea of the bible being kept out of the people’s hands by never being interpreted to English, but if she’s note I’d really feel compelled to ask for her to pick a side.

Are only Bible Scholars qualified to read the bible? No. That’s as absurd and ridiculous as NFQ probably means for it to be. But it also completely destroys her point.

Just because anyone should be able to read the bible, doesn’t mean that interpretation becomes an excuse. With any interpretation, things will get sticky and therefore when confusion comes out of it will need to be addressed. But that’s better than not interpreting at all, or over interpreting to a point it can’t be understood anyways. (Funnily enough, there is a bible interpretation that seems to want to do exactly that. It’s called the Amplified Bible, and not so surprisingly it can be very hard to read, and impossible to teach from)

NFQ goes on to point out that I commented on one particular line of the bible that doesn’t get interpreted exactly for all the reasons I’ve just stated. It’s the last few words of Genesis 2:17, and most literally they would be rendered “… and dying you shall surely die.” NFQ says that doesn’t make sense. I would almost agree, and like to point out that for that reason I explained. Over many sentences.

Allow me to summarize what I said. Dying you shall surely die doesn’t sound like much sense in English. But in (at least biblical era) Hebrew, it’s a cultural way of placing emphases. In this case, emphases on the severity of consequence. It’s an exclamation point of sorts for a people who didn’t use punctuation.

I also went on to explain how this doesn’t mean instantly in that exact moment, citing various other uses of the exact same words in other portions of the bible, places where it clearly doesn’t mean instant. But that’s left out of her post entirely.

Now NFQ asks about the tree of life and immortality, and that’s fair. I meant to cover this topic, but the whole topic became very long. Suffice to say (and I am going to gloss over this, because it involves Hebrew again, and clearly that’s not good enough) there are lines that suggest that had man chosen differently, he would have actually been allowed to live without dying. It’s actually a topic complicated enough to be worthy of its own post, and I’d like to cover it someday.

While commenting on my pointing out how the same word for day is used in multiple ways (a case for context NFQ likes to just disregard), she points out that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 might seem to have completely separate stories containing a first time God created man and woman together, and a second time God created man and woman. Two completely different and unrelated stories.

The case here is actually closer to what NFQ is stating than what she realizes. Two different stories are being told. But they also overlap and are related.

The first story is the story of creation as a whole. God created things, in this order, and rested at the end. The second is the story of what happened when (and after) God created man. The first story is a summary of a great deal of events. The second story is a detailed description of a single arc of events.

The man and woman mentioned in Genesis 1:26 are the exact same woman mentioned in Genesis chapter 2.

If I tell you about all the things I did to get to work. Perhaps waking up, showering, and getting ready for work, getting on a subway train, making the final trek to work… then later mention things that happened while on the subway train in detail, I have not told you I rode the subway twice.

This is a case of mistaking chapter and verse markings for meaningful markings of any sort. Yes, we added the chapter and verse distinctions. The books of the bile were never really written with putting those distinctions in mind. Now NFQ might decry that as more proof that the bible is altered and etc (she might not, however, to be fair), but the fact of the matter is we work and teach out of the bible. And the numbering system is the only thing that prevents a conversation such as, “Now everyone turn to the book of John. No that book of John, the other one. The one about Jesus. Now turn to the approximate middle if you have a small print bible, but two thirds in if you have a larger print. You’re looking for a section before his crucifixion…” You get the idea. Yes, the numbering system itself can create ‘problems’. But they are generally mild, and it is a case of helps more than it hurts. There are actually bibles printed without any such numbering whatsoever, and I do encourage any bible reader to purchase one. You may read the bible in a whole new way.

I can go on, and on. The problem lies in that I DO believe context matters. I also think it’s somewhat absurd to believe that context doesn’t. Context is the very heart of every sentence written. NFQ doesn’t. And since it’s a point we can’t agree on, it means it’s a topic where we will spin round and round.

And at this point, I refuse. Because as I have gone along I have come again to the realization that I began to mention earlier. NFQ is not a critical thinker. She is a debater. She doesn’t seem to care about being right so that she is right. But she cares about ‘being right whether or not she actually is right’ for the sake of winning.

You can see this in her articles on how to better debate. Debating is all well and good. But you can debate things you don’t believe and win. (I’ve done it) I have no doubt that NFQ could take every single one of her articles, and actually post responses that not only disagree but actually defeat them.

There are two kinds of debate though.

Debate for the point of bringing critical thinking. These end in the posts where when given one set of responses you reply with another set of responses based in fact, or at the very least well supported speculation.

Then there is debate for the sake of competition. These end in posts where when given one set of responses you reply with a carefully crafted set of responses with the sole intention to demean the value of the original set of responses, no matter what their actual worth may be. Usually this means the opposing responses have little knowledge or benefit to offer themselves.

NFQ’s response to my post can be boiled down to, “Canterrain is wrong because I disagree, and I think his point is invalid because I say so.” She glosses over things that are important, while focusing in on things that aren’t (all while essentially accusing me of the same thing; this despite that I admit I hadn’t focused on the part I and she really wanted me to). I get no sense that NFQ approached my requested response with any respect. (I admit, I could be wrong, tone is very hard to read on the internet)

And unfortunately, it’s left a bitter taste in my mouth. There has been one benefit to all this though. It made me remember why I started this site. And it wasn’t to debate. So I’ll throw in the ‘towel’. Because in the end, I’m hoping to add something of substance. Not win a competition. As for NFQ, well I honestly think she’s capable of substance too. She’s shown it on more than one occasion.

I think her better articles are the ones that aren’t about “how to win”, but unfortunately, as I look through them, it just seems like it’s becoming more and more about winning on her site.

But just as my ‘biases’ dictate my leanings in thought, so do hers. And I’m failing to see the point of continuing to circle the drain. So that’s why I doubt I’ll be continuing this back and forth between NFQ. And I do wish her the best. We are both just acting on our beliefs, after all.

My only regret really, is that I thoroughly enjoyed how respectful this going back and forth had started, and how disrespectful it seemed to end.

June 17, 2010

This is more of a quick article.

Over at MaxvsMax (can’t get enough of that webcomic you see), there is an interesting topic going on. The creator, Wes, quoted C.S. Lewis and asked for thoughts on the quote.

Eventually the topic of the Bible and its rules governing slavery come up. It is suggested that according the Bible slavery is just fine. Clearly this is morally repugnant, but God is just fine with it. Can that be right?

There are a few things to keep in mind here. Cultures change. There was a very real point in time when MAN accepted slavery as a natural thing, and was dependent on it. (And until not very long ago in the scheme of things)

Economies depended on slavery. People depended on slavery. In some ways, the world depended on it. Does that make it right? Absolutely not. But it does mean one thing.

Just because something is important doesn’t mean someone of authority can simply state, “This shall (not) be.” And it will happen.

If that were the case, we’d have universal health care in the United States as I type this.

Slavery could not be overturned in a moment. Sometimes cultures must be changed a little at a time. The Bible has done this more than once. A very long time ago a culture decided that if you hurt me I would hurt you worse. So you would hurt me even worse. And so on. So to start a path down a good road, an eye for an eye was started. You hurt me. I hurt you back just as much. The cycle is stopped. Eventually though, man grew enough that he should be able to do even better. So we gained the instruction turn the other cheek.

The Bible, and God’s instructions, were left in the middle a situation where slavery couldn’t simply be abolished and everything would be ok. (Anyone can be realistic and see the truth behind this, even as we all agree slavery is not ok)

So the best and only, available choice was the next best thing. See to it that if slavery ‘must’ exist, then the situation for the slave is as good as possible. (Something that sadly was not always followed) It is difficult to find another set of rules for slavery that looked upon the slave so well.

So in short. Does the Bible (and therefore God) support slavery? No. It merely didn’t have the authority to abolish it. So it did what it could to stem it.

This is an article late in coming.  And it will touch alot more on exacting scripture than I really intend for Lifequill.

In a comment to my Easy Apples post, the writer NFQ asked some questions regarding the creation story, specifically regarding the forbidden fruit and the consequences of eating it.  (You can see that post here )

There are a few things I’d like to address regarding the post, along with the final question asked.

In the post, NFQ states:

“God lies to Adam and Eve and tells them that eating the fruit will cause them to die that day. (We know it’s a lie, because they do eat the fruit and that’s not what happens.)”

But this is untrue, actually.

The problem herein lies in that NFQ is working from an English translation of the Bible.  The phrase is rendered, “And you shall surely die.” This does lend to certain problems in understanding the text.  (For reference, the section of the Bible being discussed is Genesis 2:17; “… but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”)

Two sections need to be considered.  The phrasing “in the day” and “you shall surely die.”  I’m going to start with the second.

If you examine the Hebrew, the wording and verbiage used would come out word for word, “…dying you shall surely die.”

It contains a few things that really matter (grammar specialists take note, everyone else feel free to skip forward a bit).

It contains the imperfect form of the Hebrew verb (you shall die) and the infinite absolute form of the same verb (dying).

What exactly does that mean, you ask?  First and foremost, that there is a strong emphasis on the fact that a kind of death will happen.  But to best grasp it all, one can look for other uses in the Bible.

This same basic phrase is found in Numbers 26:65.  In it, God tells the Israelites that because they refused to trust Him, the adults would die over the course of 40 years.  The phrase, dying you shall surely die, is used specifically.  But it is clear in that context, and from the following events, that God did not mean every adult would die instantly or at once.  (Hence part of the use of 40 years).  But that it could be gradual, still with the same outcome.

What of the second phrase, “in the day…” doesn’t that suggest that it would happen that day?  Well, no.  Again if you look at the Hebrew and how it is used in the Bible it often does not mean a single day.

For instance, the same word that creates this phrase is used to describe the six day period of creation.  Not a single day.  (Genesis 2:4)  It is also used again in Numbers 7:10-84 to describe a twelve day period of sacrifice.  The word itself can either be a specific day, or a number of days, or even more, and is dependent on the context of the text it is contained within to determine the case.

There are multiple ways of interpreting the line in regards to Genesis.  It seems clear that a spiritual death DID happen that day.  Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden; they “hid themselves from God.”  Their once close relationship was now broken.  But where the earlier text suggests that they may have lived eternally before (the part about eating any other tree, actually translates more correctly as everlasting feasting), they were now cursed to toil, experience pain, and eventually die.

There is nothing in the Hebrew text to suggest that the best translation would be, “If you eat the fruit, you will die instantaneously (or even this day).  Just that the death would be a grave one.  (It is emphasized in seriousness, not necessarily in timeliness)

So God was in fact telling the truth.  Eating the forbidden fruit led to both a spiritual, and eventually a physical death.

But there is still another important question from NFQ’s post I feel need be addressed.

In it they ask (and allow me to paraphrase), “Is it fair for God to punish Adam and Eve’s actions, when by the very text admittance, they did not know the difference between right and wrong?”

Yes.  Yes it is.  We as humans, more specifically parents, do exactly that every day.  When we have very young children, they often begin to do something because they do not know any better.  As a parent, we will see their action and warn them to stop.   The child understands what the parent has said, what they wish.  But chooses to do so anyways.  Again, not realizing that what they are doing is ‘wrong’.  Not knowing any better.  Yet afterwards, we still punish them.

Why?  Because even if a child did not realize what they were about to do was wrong, they do know the sound of a parent’s voice.  The intention of their words.  And chose to ignore it.  We punish as much for that as for the wrong.  Adam and Eve did not have the knowledge of right and wrong.  But they did have the knowledge of what God wanted and what He did not.  And they chose their own will anyways.  As with a child, they were punished.  They, and the child, later knew what they did was wrong.  Not just because of the action being wrong, but because of the disobedience.  A child may not yet have understanding of good and bad, right and wrong, but they do have an understanding of listening to a parent.  And we further instill that by holding them to it.

A life without consequences equates in nongrowth.

NFQ specifically asks: “So, the story of Adam and Eve suggests either that the justice of the Judeo-Christian God runs contrary to our most basic notions of what fairness should look like, or (less likely) that the Judeo-Christian God is so arbitrary as to cross the line into antagonism. If you believe in this God and you revere the text of Genesis, please tell me: which one is it?”

The answer actually is the first.  One need not look further than the Bible to see that, as stated in 1 John 1:9.  “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”

From the beginning man has as a whole done more wrong than right.  More harm than good.  Given free will, we choose destruction more often than not.  It is hard to find a person who is blameless.  (I do not believe one exists on this earth)

From the beginning all men have sooner or later chosen their own path over God’s.  Reveling in our knowledge instead of His.  Man’s justice claims that all crime should be punished.  Yet, as John tells us, God’s justice involves forgiveness.  When is the last time a judge offered a criminal forgiveness?  Yet that is God’s way.

So although NFQ was trying to get at something else, (which I admit I sidestepped entirely with my earlier answer on exactly why punishing Adam and Eve is ok), I still find the answer to the question to be a resounding yes.  What we find just in this world, it seems God would try to avoid for a greater sort of justice.

NFQ also asks: “While we’re at it — why wouldn’t God want his people to know the difference between good and evil? Wouldn’t God want people to be able to choose good over evil, and doesn’t that require being able to distinguish between them? A deity that punishes his people for finding out the difference between right and wrong does not sound very benevolent to me.”

I must simply point out what man has done with his knowledge of evil.  God has knowledge of good and evil.  Yet He is pure, and does only good.  Man on the other hand is not the same.  Capable of both good and evil, man chooses evil.  And though yes it can be said that not all men are “EVIL” in the large truly horrid sense of the world.  No man is purely good either.  And drawing a line becomes a task so large that the rolling stone of “what isn’t too evil?” will flatten even the largest city.

Without the knowledge of good and evil, man could not do evil.  But God didn’t strip that knowledge from us.  He forbade it, yes.  But He didn’t stop us from attaining it when we made the choice.  The crux of free will.