Lee Harmon's Blog, page 112
November 1, 2011
Book review: The Language of God
by Francis S. Collins
★★★★★
Current-day proponents of the New Atheism like to push the idea that atheism is the only rational belief, and believers are weak-minded non-thinkers who hide from science. This just simply isn't so. Some very accomplished scientists in many different fields are believers.
Here's one. Francis Collins is a devout believer and distinguished scientist (he is the head of the Human Genome Project) with a questioning mind and a reverence for reason ... and for the merger of science and religion. From the cover flap, "In short, Dr. Collins provides a satisfying solution for the dilemma that haunts everyone who believes in God and respects science. Faith in God and faith in science can be harmonious--combined into one worldview. The God that he believes in is a God who can listen to prayers and cares about our souls. The biological science he has advanced is compatible with such a God. For Collins, science does not conflict with the Bible, science enhances it."
That's a pretty intriguing claim, and it aroused my curiosity. In this book, Collins wrestles with questions like "What came before the big bang?" and "How did life originate?" I should set things in perspective before continuing; Collins is not promoting some flaky version of pseudo-science. He's for real. He praises Darwin and admits that no serious biologist today doubts the theory of evolution. "The relatedness of all species through the mechanism of evolution is such a profound foundation for the understanding of all biology that it is difficult to imagine how one would study life without it." A lot of effort is spent explaining "biological truth," and in a chapter titled Deciphering God's Instruction Book, Collins introduces--no, not the Bible--the lessons of the human genome.
Still, Collins respects the Bible. He dives into the debate about what Genesis really says, and why we have contradicting versions of the creation in the Bible if this poetic and allegorical writing was really meant to be read literally. Young Earth Creationism just simply isn't compatible with modern science; neither, really, is the trendy Intelligent Design explanation. Thankfully, Collins finds an ultra-literal interpretation of Genesis unnecessary. Collins proposes a solution for compatibility, which he calls BioLogos. He finds harmony between science and religion in "theistic evolution."
Finally, having dispensed with our concerns regarding the science-versus-religion conflict, he brings up the crux of the matter. Regardless of where else we are to read the Bible nonliterally, evidence supports the fantastic story of a unique individual, Jesus, who lived, died, ... and rose from the dead! Collins leans a bit on C. S. Lewis as he builds toward the climax: he, a rational scientist, logically concludes that the Jesus story is true and literal. God came down to earth in the form of a person. Wow!
While not convincing enough in itself, and leaving many other questions about the believability of the Christian God unanswered, I do highly recommend this book! It will never turn a nonbeliever into a believer, but it will definitely refine the faith of believers, helping them to overcome the dogmatism of outdated theology. Besides, it's a fun, educational read!
★★★★★
Current-day proponents of the New Atheism like to push the idea that atheism is the only rational belief, and believers are weak-minded non-thinkers who hide from science. This just simply isn't so. Some very accomplished scientists in many different fields are believers.
Here's one. Francis Collins is a devout believer and distinguished scientist (he is the head of the Human Genome Project) with a questioning mind and a reverence for reason ... and for the merger of science and religion. From the cover flap, "In short, Dr. Collins provides a satisfying solution for the dilemma that haunts everyone who believes in God and respects science. Faith in God and faith in science can be harmonious--combined into one worldview. The God that he believes in is a God who can listen to prayers and cares about our souls. The biological science he has advanced is compatible with such a God. For Collins, science does not conflict with the Bible, science enhances it."
That's a pretty intriguing claim, and it aroused my curiosity. In this book, Collins wrestles with questions like "What came before the big bang?" and "How did life originate?" I should set things in perspective before continuing; Collins is not promoting some flaky version of pseudo-science. He's for real. He praises Darwin and admits that no serious biologist today doubts the theory of evolution. "The relatedness of all species through the mechanism of evolution is such a profound foundation for the understanding of all biology that it is difficult to imagine how one would study life without it." A lot of effort is spent explaining "biological truth," and in a chapter titled Deciphering God's Instruction Book, Collins introduces--no, not the Bible--the lessons of the human genome.
Still, Collins respects the Bible. He dives into the debate about what Genesis really says, and why we have contradicting versions of the creation in the Bible if this poetic and allegorical writing was really meant to be read literally. Young Earth Creationism just simply isn't compatible with modern science; neither, really, is the trendy Intelligent Design explanation. Thankfully, Collins finds an ultra-literal interpretation of Genesis unnecessary. Collins proposes a solution for compatibility, which he calls BioLogos. He finds harmony between science and religion in "theistic evolution."
Finally, having dispensed with our concerns regarding the science-versus-religion conflict, he brings up the crux of the matter. Regardless of where else we are to read the Bible nonliterally, evidence supports the fantastic story of a unique individual, Jesus, who lived, died, ... and rose from the dead! Collins leans a bit on C. S. Lewis as he builds toward the climax: he, a rational scientist, logically concludes that the Jesus story is true and literal. God came down to earth in the form of a person. Wow!
While not convincing enough in itself, and leaving many other questions about the believability of the Christian God unanswered, I do highly recommend this book! It will never turn a nonbeliever into a believer, but it will definitely refine the faith of believers, helping them to overcome the dogmatism of outdated theology. Besides, it's a fun, educational read!
October 31, 2011
Genesis 4:17, Who was Cain's wife?
And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch.
//But where did Cain find her? It's a tricky question, but it does have an answer! Let me guide you there in a roundabout way.
We have at least two legends about man's arrival in the Bible, by two different authors. These two stories have been spliced together in Genesis. For more about how we know they were originally two separate stories, I refer you to the Documentary Hypothesis.
In one story, God creates the universe in six days. On the final day, God makes mankind, men and women both, and sends them forth to multiply. Kind of a boring story.
The second story is a bit more interesting. It begins in Genesis 2:7. God doesn't make mankind, he forms a man, (Adam) sculpting him out of the dust of the ground. God has planted a garden, and wants somebody to tend the garden.
Story 1: All future generations descend from Adam. Story 2: No such assumption is made; Adam isn't necessarily numero uno.
Suppose we keep reading in the Bible, past these two legends. One day, Adam's son Cain shows up with a wife! If Adam was the first-ever man on earth, then where on earth did Cain find her?
Story 1: Presumably, Cain hangs around and chooses a sister. Story 2: Probably, Cain chooses a wife from the heathen nations rather than choosing one of Adam's daughters. So which one is it?
Story 1: in Genesis 5:3-4, When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters.* There isn't any first-born Cain in this story. Repeat: No Cain in story 1. The firstborn is Seth. Story 2: Adam eats of the tree of knowledge, which apparently results in a sexual awakening, and lo! Children. Can you imagine their surprise? Anyway, as Genesis chapters 3 and 4 make clear, the first startling arrival is a fellow they name Cain. The second-born, Abel, comes along quite routinely. As the story continues, one child (Cain) kills the other and is driven away from the family. Cain pleads for mercy: "Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me." Cain seems to know that there are plenty of other people waiting on the other side of the mountain.
So, there you have it. Cain belongs to story 2, and probably found his wife among the nations of the world.
(*Note: Likely, the story of Seth as the firstborn of Adam is of yet another source, possibly an earlier source than Genesis chapter one, but may have been known to the writer who penned his six-day creation story.)
//But where did Cain find her? It's a tricky question, but it does have an answer! Let me guide you there in a roundabout way.
We have at least two legends about man's arrival in the Bible, by two different authors. These two stories have been spliced together in Genesis. For more about how we know they were originally two separate stories, I refer you to the Documentary Hypothesis.
In one story, God creates the universe in six days. On the final day, God makes mankind, men and women both, and sends them forth to multiply. Kind of a boring story.
The second story is a bit more interesting. It begins in Genesis 2:7. God doesn't make mankind, he forms a man, (Adam) sculpting him out of the dust of the ground. God has planted a garden, and wants somebody to tend the garden.
Story 1: All future generations descend from Adam. Story 2: No such assumption is made; Adam isn't necessarily numero uno.
Suppose we keep reading in the Bible, past these two legends. One day, Adam's son Cain shows up with a wife! If Adam was the first-ever man on earth, then where on earth did Cain find her?
Story 1: Presumably, Cain hangs around and chooses a sister. Story 2: Probably, Cain chooses a wife from the heathen nations rather than choosing one of Adam's daughters. So which one is it?
Story 1: in Genesis 5:3-4, When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters.* There isn't any first-born Cain in this story. Repeat: No Cain in story 1. The firstborn is Seth. Story 2: Adam eats of the tree of knowledge, which apparently results in a sexual awakening, and lo! Children. Can you imagine their surprise? Anyway, as Genesis chapters 3 and 4 make clear, the first startling arrival is a fellow they name Cain. The second-born, Abel, comes along quite routinely. As the story continues, one child (Cain) kills the other and is driven away from the family. Cain pleads for mercy: "Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me." Cain seems to know that there are plenty of other people waiting on the other side of the mountain.
So, there you have it. Cain belongs to story 2, and probably found his wife among the nations of the world.
(*Note: Likely, the story of Seth as the firstborn of Adam is of yet another source, possibly an earlier source than Genesis chapter one, but may have been known to the writer who penned his six-day creation story.)
October 30, 2011
Book review: A New Reformation
by Matthew Fox
★★★★★
Five centuries ago, a monk named Martin Luther revolutionized the Christian world. He devised a new vision of Christianity in 95 theses, and nailed these theses to the door of Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany. The Reformation, as it came to be known, resulted in a schism between the Roman Catholics and what became known as Protestant Christianity.
Disgusted with the fundamentalist direction of the Catholic church (Matthew Fox was a member of the Dominican Order for thirty-four years before being expelled) and inspired by Luther's movement, Fox decided to reenact Luther's rebellion. His own resulting 95 theses are liberal and post-modern, reflecting a more pantheistic understanding of God over the "Punitive Father" of Catholic tradition. He then nailed these theses to the very same door. (Well, the door was no longer wooden, but metal, so he had to build a little wooden frame to nail his new Reformation.)
The gist of Fox's Reformation is that the church needs to move away from religion, and toward spirituality. We have lost our appreciation and awe of creation (Fox is a long-time proponent of what he labels "Creation Spirituality.") We would be better off without the doctrine of Original Sin, with its guilt-ridden baggage, embracing instead the Original Blessing, which recognizes awe as the starting point of true religion. There is no conflict between Fox's version of Christianity and scientific discovery. No conflict with post-modern morality, granting equal respect and rights to women and to gays and lesbians.
A sampling of Fox's 96 theses follow:
Number 6: Theism (the idea that God is "out there" or above and beyond the universe) is false. All things are in God and God is in all things.
Number 13: Spirituality and religion are not the same any more than education and learning, law and justice, or commerce and stewardship are the same.
Number 15: Christians must distinguish between Jesus (a historical figure) and Christ (the experience of God-in-all-things).
Number 36: Dance, whose root meaning in many indigenous cultures is the same as breath or spirit, is a very ancient and appropriate form in which to pray.
Number 59: Fourteen billion years of evolution and unfolding of the universe bespeak the intimate sacredness of all that is.
Number 75: Poverty for the many and luxury for the few are not right or sustainable.
★★★★★
Five centuries ago, a monk named Martin Luther revolutionized the Christian world. He devised a new vision of Christianity in 95 theses, and nailed these theses to the door of Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany. The Reformation, as it came to be known, resulted in a schism between the Roman Catholics and what became known as Protestant Christianity.
Disgusted with the fundamentalist direction of the Catholic church (Matthew Fox was a member of the Dominican Order for thirty-four years before being expelled) and inspired by Luther's movement, Fox decided to reenact Luther's rebellion. His own resulting 95 theses are liberal and post-modern, reflecting a more pantheistic understanding of God over the "Punitive Father" of Catholic tradition. He then nailed these theses to the very same door. (Well, the door was no longer wooden, but metal, so he had to build a little wooden frame to nail his new Reformation.)
The gist of Fox's Reformation is that the church needs to move away from religion, and toward spirituality. We have lost our appreciation and awe of creation (Fox is a long-time proponent of what he labels "Creation Spirituality.") We would be better off without the doctrine of Original Sin, with its guilt-ridden baggage, embracing instead the Original Blessing, which recognizes awe as the starting point of true religion. There is no conflict between Fox's version of Christianity and scientific discovery. No conflict with post-modern morality, granting equal respect and rights to women and to gays and lesbians.
A sampling of Fox's 96 theses follow:
Number 6: Theism (the idea that God is "out there" or above and beyond the universe) is false. All things are in God and God is in all things.
Number 13: Spirituality and religion are not the same any more than education and learning, law and justice, or commerce and stewardship are the same.
Number 15: Christians must distinguish between Jesus (a historical figure) and Christ (the experience of God-in-all-things).
Number 36: Dance, whose root meaning in many indigenous cultures is the same as breath or spirit, is a very ancient and appropriate form in which to pray.
Number 59: Fourteen billion years of evolution and unfolding of the universe bespeak the intimate sacredness of all that is.
Number 75: Poverty for the many and luxury for the few are not right or sustainable.
October 29, 2011
Genesis 14:7, Those Pesky Amalekites
And they returned, and came to Enmishpat, which is Kadesh, and smote all the country of the Amalekites.
//You think Israel is the only nation that God resurrected? Here's a nation that was destroyed four times, and kept coming back to life. In today's verse, the wording seems to imply that all of the Amalekites were smitten, but apparently it wasn't so. They were still around a bit later for Saul to destroy again:
1 Samuel 15:20, And Saul said unto Samuel, Yea, I have obeyed the voice of the LORD, ... and have utterly destroyed the Amalekites.
This time, the wording is pretty clear. But Saul must have been wrong; it's not over yet. Next, it's King David's turn:
1 Samuel 27:8-9, And David and his men went up, and invaded the Geshurites, and the Gezrites, and the Amalekites ... And David smote the land, and left neither man nor woman alive.
There! That should do it! Surely this time they'll stay dead, right? Not so; three chapters later, the Amalekites are still wreaking havoc.
1 Samuel 30:1, And it came to pass, when David and his men were come to Ziklag on the third day, that the Amalekites had invaded the south, and Ziklag, and smitten Ziklag, and burned it with fire; So, David goes after them, and in verse 17, he smites them "from the twilight even unto the evening of the next day: and there escaped not a man of them, save four hundred young men, which rode upon camels, and fled." Then, 1 Chronicles 4:43 tells what happened to the remnant: "And they smote the rest of the Amalekites that were escaped, and dwelt there unto this day."
Let's hope that finally did the trick.
//You think Israel is the only nation that God resurrected? Here's a nation that was destroyed four times, and kept coming back to life. In today's verse, the wording seems to imply that all of the Amalekites were smitten, but apparently it wasn't so. They were still around a bit later for Saul to destroy again:
1 Samuel 15:20, And Saul said unto Samuel, Yea, I have obeyed the voice of the LORD, ... and have utterly destroyed the Amalekites.
This time, the wording is pretty clear. But Saul must have been wrong; it's not over yet. Next, it's King David's turn:
1 Samuel 27:8-9, And David and his men went up, and invaded the Geshurites, and the Gezrites, and the Amalekites ... And David smote the land, and left neither man nor woman alive.
There! That should do it! Surely this time they'll stay dead, right? Not so; three chapters later, the Amalekites are still wreaking havoc.
1 Samuel 30:1, And it came to pass, when David and his men were come to Ziklag on the third day, that the Amalekites had invaded the south, and Ziklag, and smitten Ziklag, and burned it with fire; So, David goes after them, and in verse 17, he smites them "from the twilight even unto the evening of the next day: and there escaped not a man of them, save four hundred young men, which rode upon camels, and fled." Then, 1 Chronicles 4:43 tells what happened to the remnant: "And they smote the rest of the Amalekites that were escaped, and dwelt there unto this day."
Let's hope that finally did the trick.
October 28, 2011
Book review: Darwin's Cathedral
by David Sloan Wilson
★★★
Can evolutionary methods be used to study the development of religion? David Sloan Wilson, a renowned evolutionary biologist, proposes that religion evolved because of the advantages it confers on those who share in it. Religion may even have contributed to humanity's rise as the dominant animal on earth. By studying religious concepts in their group settings (religions are well known for their in-group morality and out-group hostility), Wilson places the evolution of social behavior, and religion in particular, on the same playing field as biological entities.
Group selection long ago became passé among evolutionary biologists, but it may be time for its revival. In the 60's, it was believed that evolution takes place entirely by mutational change. Since then, it has been shown that evolution also occurs along a different pathway: by social groups becoming so functionally integrated that they become higher-level organisms in their own right. So why aren't groups—particularly religious groupings—receiving the attention they deserve in the evolutionary field?
Wilson wants to study religious groups in the same way biologists study guppies, bacteria, and other forms of life. Does the rational choice theory fit religion? Functionalism? Using Calvinism as his primary case study, he determines that characteristics of social groups can be predicted via group selection theory.
Intelligent and cutting edge, Wilson does have something to say, but this is not an easy read; it reads like a university thesis, scholarly and reference-infested. It's not because the theory isn't fascinating, but because I had a hard time concentrating on the presentation, that I ranked it only three stars.
★★★
Can evolutionary methods be used to study the development of religion? David Sloan Wilson, a renowned evolutionary biologist, proposes that religion evolved because of the advantages it confers on those who share in it. Religion may even have contributed to humanity's rise as the dominant animal on earth. By studying religious concepts in their group settings (religions are well known for their in-group morality and out-group hostility), Wilson places the evolution of social behavior, and religion in particular, on the same playing field as biological entities.
Group selection long ago became passé among evolutionary biologists, but it may be time for its revival. In the 60's, it was believed that evolution takes place entirely by mutational change. Since then, it has been shown that evolution also occurs along a different pathway: by social groups becoming so functionally integrated that they become higher-level organisms in their own right. So why aren't groups—particularly religious groupings—receiving the attention they deserve in the evolutionary field?
Wilson wants to study religious groups in the same way biologists study guppies, bacteria, and other forms of life. Does the rational choice theory fit religion? Functionalism? Using Calvinism as his primary case study, he determines that characteristics of social groups can be predicted via group selection theory.
Intelligent and cutting edge, Wilson does have something to say, but this is not an easy read; it reads like a university thesis, scholarly and reference-infested. It's not because the theory isn't fascinating, but because I had a hard time concentrating on the presentation, that I ranked it only three stars.
October 27, 2011
Romans 8:14, Sons of God
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
//The synoptic gospels indicate that in the age to come and in the heavenly realm, we will become sons of God. According to Luke, if you love your enemies, "your reward will be great, and you will become sons of the Most High." (Luke 6:35) Matthew says of the peacemakers, "they shall be called the sons of God." (Matthew 5:9) About the coming age Luke promises, "they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God's children, since they are children of the resurrection." (Luke 20:36). Becoming God's son is recognized as an eschatological sign of the final age, a promise speaking of the resurrection.
In contrast, John and Paul treat sonship as a gift already bestowed. Paul says, "Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts." (Gal 4:6) John 1:12-13 makes it clear that God has granted the opportunity to be born again, not of natural descent but of God, and that such believers are already "children of God."
When we recognize that Paul is our earliest Christian writer, and when we begin to notice all of the instances where John agrees with Paul rather than the Synoptics, we have to ask the question quite seriously whether John, with its insistence that we have already entered the final age, reflects an earlier Christian tradition rather than a later one.
Has the resurrection already occurred?
//The synoptic gospels indicate that in the age to come and in the heavenly realm, we will become sons of God. According to Luke, if you love your enemies, "your reward will be great, and you will become sons of the Most High." (Luke 6:35) Matthew says of the peacemakers, "they shall be called the sons of God." (Matthew 5:9) About the coming age Luke promises, "they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God's children, since they are children of the resurrection." (Luke 20:36). Becoming God's son is recognized as an eschatological sign of the final age, a promise speaking of the resurrection.
In contrast, John and Paul treat sonship as a gift already bestowed. Paul says, "Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts." (Gal 4:6) John 1:12-13 makes it clear that God has granted the opportunity to be born again, not of natural descent but of God, and that such believers are already "children of God."
When we recognize that Paul is our earliest Christian writer, and when we begin to notice all of the instances where John agrees with Paul rather than the Synoptics, we have to ask the question quite seriously whether John, with its insistence that we have already entered the final age, reflects an earlier Christian tradition rather than a later one.
Has the resurrection already occurred?
October 26, 2011
Book review: The Feasts of Israel
by Bruce Scott
★★★★★
A good way to measure the worth of a book, for me, is to page through it afterward noting how much of the text has been highlighted. In this case, a lot! If I have any criticism of the book, it's that Scott finds too much meaning in the feasts. He works overly hard to relate every aspect of Jewish celebrations to the life of Jesus, even when the New Testament authors didn't appear to have any intention of such parallels. This artificiality does betray Scott's evangelistic emphasis.
This book is written very simply; a young teenager could appreciate and enjoy it as much as adults. And when this young teenager finished the book, he/she would have a deeper understanding of the New Testament's Jewish influence than the majority of Christian ministers!
Scott covers the Sabbath and the major feasts of Passover, the Feast of Weeks, the Jewish New Year, the Day of Atonement, and the Feasts of Tabernacles in part 1. He then covers a number of minor feasts (including Hanukkah and Purim) and Jewish fast days in part 2. A concluding chapter titled Shadow or Substance? discusses what the recognition of these feasts should mean to us today, and whether or not Christians should celebrate them.
★★★★★
A good way to measure the worth of a book, for me, is to page through it afterward noting how much of the text has been highlighted. In this case, a lot! If I have any criticism of the book, it's that Scott finds too much meaning in the feasts. He works overly hard to relate every aspect of Jewish celebrations to the life of Jesus, even when the New Testament authors didn't appear to have any intention of such parallels. This artificiality does betray Scott's evangelistic emphasis.
This book is written very simply; a young teenager could appreciate and enjoy it as much as adults. And when this young teenager finished the book, he/she would have a deeper understanding of the New Testament's Jewish influence than the majority of Christian ministers!
Scott covers the Sabbath and the major feasts of Passover, the Feast of Weeks, the Jewish New Year, the Day of Atonement, and the Feasts of Tabernacles in part 1. He then covers a number of minor feasts (including Hanukkah and Purim) and Jewish fast days in part 2. A concluding chapter titled Shadow or Substance? discusses what the recognition of these feasts should mean to us today, and whether or not Christians should celebrate them.
October 25, 2011
2 Samuel 8:4, 700 or 7,000 horsemen?
David smote also Hadadezer, the son of Rehob, king of Zobah, as he went to recover his border at the river Euphrates. And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen.
//Seven hundred horsemen, it says. Here's the same battle, described in the Chronicles:
And David smote Hadarezer king of Zobah unto Hamath, as he went to stablish his dominion by the river Euphrates. And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen.
Oops! First 700 horsemen, then 7,000? Did the Bible slip a digit?
Early Bible translators preferred the second story. When the Hebrew text of 700 horsemen was rewritten into the Greek Septuagint, it somehow became 7,000. The Dead Sea scrolls agree: 7,000. Today's various translations can't decide what to do; some say 700, some say 7,000. Oddly, the Masoretic text claims 1,700. Can any of the numbers in the Bible be trusted? Or do its numbers just grow over time, like a good fish story?
I get the feeling that the only really important digit is the 7; that's God's favorite number, that's the digit that proves God's hand is in the matter. The rest don't matter, and scripture writers felt free to exaggerate as they pleased. Here's another example of how an original story (in Samuel) grew when rewritten hundreds of years later (in Chronicles):
And the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew the men of seven hundred chariots of the Syrians, and forty thousand horsemen, and smote Shobach the captain of their host, who died there. (2 Samuel 10:18). Now, here's the same battle in Chronicles, where 700 charioteers again turn into 7,000. But the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew of the Syrians seven thousand men which fought in chariots, and forty thousand footmen, and killed Shophach the captain of the host. (1 Chronicles 19:18)
//Seven hundred horsemen, it says. Here's the same battle, described in the Chronicles:
And David smote Hadarezer king of Zobah unto Hamath, as he went to stablish his dominion by the river Euphrates. And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen.
Oops! First 700 horsemen, then 7,000? Did the Bible slip a digit?
Early Bible translators preferred the second story. When the Hebrew text of 700 horsemen was rewritten into the Greek Septuagint, it somehow became 7,000. The Dead Sea scrolls agree: 7,000. Today's various translations can't decide what to do; some say 700, some say 7,000. Oddly, the Masoretic text claims 1,700. Can any of the numbers in the Bible be trusted? Or do its numbers just grow over time, like a good fish story?
I get the feeling that the only really important digit is the 7; that's God's favorite number, that's the digit that proves God's hand is in the matter. The rest don't matter, and scripture writers felt free to exaggerate as they pleased. Here's another example of how an original story (in Samuel) grew when rewritten hundreds of years later (in Chronicles):
And the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew the men of seven hundred chariots of the Syrians, and forty thousand horsemen, and smote Shobach the captain of their host, who died there. (2 Samuel 10:18). Now, here's the same battle in Chronicles, where 700 charioteers again turn into 7,000. But the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew of the Syrians seven thousand men which fought in chariots, and forty thousand footmen, and killed Shophach the captain of the host. (1 Chronicles 19:18)
October 24, 2011
Book review: Holy Ghost Girl
by Donna Johnson
★★★★★
Excellent! Definitely a fun book, if a bit freaky. Now, there's a word I've never used before in a book review!
Donna Johnson tells the story of a little girl growing up on the "sawdust trail" of traveling tent missionary David Terrell. Yes, that David Terrell. Welcome to the world of public miracles, undercover infidelity and cognitive dissonance. On a grand scale. While it's true the story is told through the wide eyes of a child, you may turn the final page still wondering if this wayward, charismatic holy man was the real thing. Perhaps God has a sense of humor.
Here's the odd part. I read the entire book, never connecting the name of the author with the little girl it's about. Donna. Yeah, it's a memoir, an autobiographical work, but it never once crossed my mind that the young girl of this book could possibly overcome her bizarre upbringing and grow up "normal" enough to recount her youth in such fascinating prose. The writing is as delightful as it is haunting, one of those books that leaves you grasping hungrily at the acknowledgements after its all over to avoid putting it down.
It might be that I'm over-fascinated by religion-gone-wild, but IMO this is a story you don't want to miss.
★★★★★
Excellent! Definitely a fun book, if a bit freaky. Now, there's a word I've never used before in a book review!
Donna Johnson tells the story of a little girl growing up on the "sawdust trail" of traveling tent missionary David Terrell. Yes, that David Terrell. Welcome to the world of public miracles, undercover infidelity and cognitive dissonance. On a grand scale. While it's true the story is told through the wide eyes of a child, you may turn the final page still wondering if this wayward, charismatic holy man was the real thing. Perhaps God has a sense of humor.
Here's the odd part. I read the entire book, never connecting the name of the author with the little girl it's about. Donna. Yeah, it's a memoir, an autobiographical work, but it never once crossed my mind that the young girl of this book could possibly overcome her bizarre upbringing and grow up "normal" enough to recount her youth in such fascinating prose. The writing is as delightful as it is haunting, one of those books that leaves you grasping hungrily at the acknowledgements after its all over to avoid putting it down.
It might be that I'm over-fascinated by religion-gone-wild, but IMO this is a story you don't want to miss.
October 23, 2011
Isaiah 61:2, Who Is Melchizedek?
[T]o proclaim the year of Melchizedek's favor and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all who mourn.
//You won't find this verse in your Bible. Not in these words, anyway. This rendition comes from the Dead Sea Scrolls, where the name Melchizedek replaces "the LORD" in Isaiah 61:2.
The few verses we have about Melchizedek reveal little more than a mystery. He pops up in the Old Testament and disappears just as quickly. The book of Hebrews describes him as "without father, mother, or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God" (Hebrew 7:3). The Dead Sea Scrolls have shed some light on Jewish thinking regarding the mysterious figure of Melchizedek. Until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, this verse in Hebrews made little sense. Who is Melchizedek, anyway?
But in the "Melchizedek Scroll" from Cave 11, Psalm 7 has Melchizedek ruling from on high, not God. In Psalm 82, it is not God who presides over the great assembly, it is Melchizedek. Finally, today's verse where Isaiah mentions "the year of the Lord's favor," the Dead Sea Scroll reads "the year of Melchizedek's favor." Each time, Melchizedek is equated with God himself.
There you go.
//You won't find this verse in your Bible. Not in these words, anyway. This rendition comes from the Dead Sea Scrolls, where the name Melchizedek replaces "the LORD" in Isaiah 61:2.
The few verses we have about Melchizedek reveal little more than a mystery. He pops up in the Old Testament and disappears just as quickly. The book of Hebrews describes him as "without father, mother, or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God" (Hebrew 7:3). The Dead Sea Scrolls have shed some light on Jewish thinking regarding the mysterious figure of Melchizedek. Until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, this verse in Hebrews made little sense. Who is Melchizedek, anyway?
But in the "Melchizedek Scroll" from Cave 11, Psalm 7 has Melchizedek ruling from on high, not God. In Psalm 82, it is not God who presides over the great assembly, it is Melchizedek. Finally, today's verse where Isaiah mentions "the year of the Lord's favor," the Dead Sea Scroll reads "the year of Melchizedek's favor." Each time, Melchizedek is equated with God himself.
There you go.
