Lee Harmon's Blog, page 77
November 13, 2012
Genesis 30:32, How To Breed Spotted Goats
Let me go through all your flocks today and remove from them every speckled or spotted sheep, every dark-colored lamb and every spotted or speckled goat. They will be my wages.
//Here's the story. Jacob is discussing the proper wages for his service to Laban. He and Laban agree that Jacob will keep all the speckled animals of the flock.
But Jacob has a trick up his sleeve. He has figured out how to make speckled animals.
He cuts off the branches of trees, and peels the bark back to make white strips on the branches. When the animals are in heat, he places the sticks in the watering troughs so that when they come to drink, they will see spots of dark and white. There, with spots in their eyes, they mate and produce speckled offspring.
This works very well. In fact too well. All of the animals are getting speckled. So Jacob watches to see whether the females in heat are strong or weak. He puts spots in front of the eyes of the strong animals only, and leaves the weak ones for Laban.
Thus Jacob "grew exceedingly prosperous and came to own large flocks, and maidservants and menservants, and camels and donkeys."
[image error]
//Here's the story. Jacob is discussing the proper wages for his service to Laban. He and Laban agree that Jacob will keep all the speckled animals of the flock.
But Jacob has a trick up his sleeve. He has figured out how to make speckled animals.
He cuts off the branches of trees, and peels the bark back to make white strips on the branches. When the animals are in heat, he places the sticks in the watering troughs so that when they come to drink, they will see spots of dark and white. There, with spots in their eyes, they mate and produce speckled offspring.
This works very well. In fact too well. All of the animals are getting speckled. So Jacob watches to see whether the females in heat are strong or weak. He puts spots in front of the eyes of the strong animals only, and leaves the weak ones for Laban.
Thus Jacob "grew exceedingly prosperous and came to own large flocks, and maidservants and menservants, and camels and donkeys."
[image error]
November 12, 2012
Book review: The Swedish Atheist, the Scuba Diver and Other Apologetic Rabbit Trails
by Randal Rauser
★★★★★
My kind of Christian apologetics! A friend on Goodreads recommended this book to me, and he guessed right. I loved it.
Rauser leads us into a quaint little coffee shop for an afternoon of friendly argument, where he spies the perfect target: an atheist named Sheridan who is versed in apologetics just enough to make the conversation interesting. Sheridan argues that the geographic distribution of various types of believers proves that religion isn’t objective; he wonders why Zeus isn’t just as likely to be a real god as Rauser’s Most Perfect Being; he insists that morals are an evolutionary accident, with no need for divine intervention; he confronts Rauser with the problem of evil, and in particular the absurdity of everlasting punishment; and he argues that what Christians recognize as signs from God are no more than coincidences. Except for the whole “Yahweh condones evil” thing (where Rauser’s best defense is to shrug and admit that he’s not a defender for the “home team” but rather a pursuer of truth), Sheridan’s objections to Christianity get shot down.
You might recognize already that Rauser’s idea of apologetics is not about debating atheists until they succumb to logic and beg for baptism, but “rigorously pursuing truth in conversation.” This book isn’t going to shoot the moon. None of that “I can prove Jesus rose from the dead” stuff. Just reasonable exploration leading to a reasonable conclusion that Christian beliefs are not unreasonable.
I hope you don’t take this as a spoiler, but here’s my take on the coffee house conversation: Rauser provides some solid argument for the possibility of some sort of unexplained, intelligent creator and guide, who could be just about anyone but Yahweh of the Old Testament (as least the way its writers understood Him, since surely a “perfect being” wouldn’t really condone the genocide that was done in His name). Some arguments are better than others, and like I said, Rauser provides no conclusive proof that Christianity is the One True Religion. So, we’re left with a mystery, but one that should at least keep us from sneering at those who choose a Christian interface with this mystery.
All in all, this is a really fun book. Randal, if you write more, please consider more Dubious Disciple reviews!
[image error]
★★★★★
My kind of Christian apologetics! A friend on Goodreads recommended this book to me, and he guessed right. I loved it.
Rauser leads us into a quaint little coffee shop for an afternoon of friendly argument, where he spies the perfect target: an atheist named Sheridan who is versed in apologetics just enough to make the conversation interesting. Sheridan argues that the geographic distribution of various types of believers proves that religion isn’t objective; he wonders why Zeus isn’t just as likely to be a real god as Rauser’s Most Perfect Being; he insists that morals are an evolutionary accident, with no need for divine intervention; he confronts Rauser with the problem of evil, and in particular the absurdity of everlasting punishment; and he argues that what Christians recognize as signs from God are no more than coincidences. Except for the whole “Yahweh condones evil” thing (where Rauser’s best defense is to shrug and admit that he’s not a defender for the “home team” but rather a pursuer of truth), Sheridan’s objections to Christianity get shot down.
You might recognize already that Rauser’s idea of apologetics is not about debating atheists until they succumb to logic and beg for baptism, but “rigorously pursuing truth in conversation.” This book isn’t going to shoot the moon. None of that “I can prove Jesus rose from the dead” stuff. Just reasonable exploration leading to a reasonable conclusion that Christian beliefs are not unreasonable.
I hope you don’t take this as a spoiler, but here’s my take on the coffee house conversation: Rauser provides some solid argument for the possibility of some sort of unexplained, intelligent creator and guide, who could be just about anyone but Yahweh of the Old Testament (as least the way its writers understood Him, since surely a “perfect being” wouldn’t really condone the genocide that was done in His name). Some arguments are better than others, and like I said, Rauser provides no conclusive proof that Christianity is the One True Religion. So, we’re left with a mystery, but one that should at least keep us from sneering at those who choose a Christian interface with this mystery.
All in all, this is a really fun book. Randal, if you write more, please consider more Dubious Disciple reviews!
[image error]
November 11, 2012
Genesis 8:5, Where is Noah's Ark?
And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.
//Whatever happened to Noah's gopher-wood Ark? Expeditions to Ararat have tried to find it, but so far, nothing very convincing has been discovered.
Today's verse tells how the ark ran aground, presumably on Mount Ararat, the tallest mountain in Turkey. It was another three months before the "tops of the mountains" were seen. This would refer to the remaining, lower-elevation mountains in the range, right? But no green vegetation could be seen yet.
Another forty days' wait and Noah starts sending birds out to scout the land. In time, a dove returns with an olive branch in its mouth, evidence that the waters had receded down to the green stuff, so Noah knows it's time to exit the ark. But whatever happened to the ark?
Maybe the answer is in plain sight.
And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. --Genesis 8:20
One estimate of the number of clean animals would be 192 species, plus about a comparable number of now-extinct species. Many of them quite bulky. Atop the glacier-capped mountain of Ararat, way above the tree line, where did Noah get the wood for all these burnt offerings? Would gopher wood work?
//Whatever happened to Noah's gopher-wood Ark? Expeditions to Ararat have tried to find it, but so far, nothing very convincing has been discovered.
Today's verse tells how the ark ran aground, presumably on Mount Ararat, the tallest mountain in Turkey. It was another three months before the "tops of the mountains" were seen. This would refer to the remaining, lower-elevation mountains in the range, right? But no green vegetation could be seen yet.
Another forty days' wait and Noah starts sending birds out to scout the land. In time, a dove returns with an olive branch in its mouth, evidence that the waters had receded down to the green stuff, so Noah knows it's time to exit the ark. But whatever happened to the ark?
Maybe the answer is in plain sight.
And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. --Genesis 8:20
One estimate of the number of clean animals would be 192 species, plus about a comparable number of now-extinct species. Many of them quite bulky. Atop the glacier-capped mountain of Ararat, way above the tree line, where did Noah get the wood for all these burnt offerings? Would gopher wood work?
November 10, 2012
Psalm 83:18, How do you say Jehovah?
That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.
//How do you pronounce the name of God? Most scholars sneer at the common pronunciation of "Jehovah" and opt instead for "Yahweh." Why?
It's a long story. It helps to understand that the name of God (or any god) in antiquity is sacred. It dare not be spoken aloud. It helps also to understand that ancient Hebrew did not include vowels. Thus we have only YHWH in the written record, and the tradition that it should never be spoken out loud. Readers of scripture would actually substitute the word Adonai, meaning "my Lord," when reading. Small wonder that today we no longer know how to pronounce God’s name.
Here's part of the problem. Maybe you've heard of the Masoretic Text, the authoritative Hebrew text of the Old Testament used between the 7th and 10th centuries. When the Masoretes transcribed the original Hebrew, they went back and added vowels to the consonants. However, they had a conundrum. If they put the correct vowels in place for YHWH, people would pronounce the name of God; a sin to be avoided at all costs. So, as the story goes (and it is probably true), they took the vowels from the word Adonai and inserted them into YHWH. That way, if you tried to pronounce God's name, you would be wrong. Adding these vowels produced the English word Jehovah.
So how do you pronounce the name of God? Well, we don't know for sure, but the one thing we do suspect is that it could be anything but Jehovah.
//How do you pronounce the name of God? Most scholars sneer at the common pronunciation of "Jehovah" and opt instead for "Yahweh." Why?
It's a long story. It helps to understand that the name of God (or any god) in antiquity is sacred. It dare not be spoken aloud. It helps also to understand that ancient Hebrew did not include vowels. Thus we have only YHWH in the written record, and the tradition that it should never be spoken out loud. Readers of scripture would actually substitute the word Adonai, meaning "my Lord," when reading. Small wonder that today we no longer know how to pronounce God’s name.
Here's part of the problem. Maybe you've heard of the Masoretic Text, the authoritative Hebrew text of the Old Testament used between the 7th and 10th centuries. When the Masoretes transcribed the original Hebrew, they went back and added vowels to the consonants. However, they had a conundrum. If they put the correct vowels in place for YHWH, people would pronounce the name of God; a sin to be avoided at all costs. So, as the story goes (and it is probably true), they took the vowels from the word Adonai and inserted them into YHWH. That way, if you tried to pronounce God's name, you would be wrong. Adding these vowels produced the English word Jehovah.
So how do you pronounce the name of God? Well, we don't know for sure, but the one thing we do suspect is that it could be anything but Jehovah.
November 9, 2012
Book review: Drops Like Stars
by Rob Bell
★★★★★
Here's a short little booklet you can read over your lunch hour. Rob Bell, the controversial emergent mega-church pastor and best-selling author of Love Wins, tackles the subject of grief.
Bell is a minister, but doesn't turn this into a book about God. It's not tough love and it's not sappy sentiment. Just words to think about and draw inspiration from.
If you're thinking about buying this as a gift book, I wouldn't say that it's appropriate for the deep-in-grief stage, but rather the help-me-stand-up-again stage. As Bell says, he's less concerned about the "why this?" than the "what now?"
Never heard Bell preach, but I'm sure beginning to like him as a person. I guess that's the important thing for a good spiritual adviser.
★★★★★
Here's a short little booklet you can read over your lunch hour. Rob Bell, the controversial emergent mega-church pastor and best-selling author of Love Wins, tackles the subject of grief.
Bell is a minister, but doesn't turn this into a book about God. It's not tough love and it's not sappy sentiment. Just words to think about and draw inspiration from.
If you're thinking about buying this as a gift book, I wouldn't say that it's appropriate for the deep-in-grief stage, but rather the help-me-stand-up-again stage. As Bell says, he's less concerned about the "why this?" than the "what now?"
Never heard Bell preach, but I'm sure beginning to like him as a person. I guess that's the important thing for a good spiritual adviser.
November 8, 2012
1 Corinthians 7:32-24, Why We Shouldn't Marry
I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs--how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife—and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world--how she can please her husband.
//In both of my books, Revelation and John's Gospel, I make an off-hand mention of Paul's suggestion that it's better not to marry. I've had questions about this, so maybe I can address this issue in a Dubious Disciple post.
The reason Paul's readers were not to marry was because, according to him, his readers were living on the cusp of a new age. As Paul explains,
But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this. What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they had none; --1 Corinthians 7:28-29
Paul was absolutely convinced of the immediate return of Christ! He was apparently wrong, but his conviction on this matter is very clear. Paul, in a vision, had seen the risen Christ, which to him was irreproachable proof that the general resurrection had begun ... with Christ as the first to resurrect. People were rising from the dead, and the new world was just around the corner. Don't bother getting married, guys and gals, there's no time to bother with that, it'll just distract you from preparing for the new age.
//In both of my books, Revelation and John's Gospel, I make an off-hand mention of Paul's suggestion that it's better not to marry. I've had questions about this, so maybe I can address this issue in a Dubious Disciple post.
The reason Paul's readers were not to marry was because, according to him, his readers were living on the cusp of a new age. As Paul explains,
But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this. What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they had none; --1 Corinthians 7:28-29
Paul was absolutely convinced of the immediate return of Christ! He was apparently wrong, but his conviction on this matter is very clear. Paul, in a vision, had seen the risen Christ, which to him was irreproachable proof that the general resurrection had begun ... with Christ as the first to resurrect. People were rising from the dead, and the new world was just around the corner. Don't bother getting married, guys and gals, there's no time to bother with that, it'll just distract you from preparing for the new age.
November 7, 2012
Psalm 23:6 How Long Is Forever?
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.
//Here is one of the most well-known verses in the Bible, certainly a favorite for funerals. We find great comfort in this idea of dwelling forever in the house of the Lord, once this life ends.
The meaning of "forever," however, was not at all then what it means to us today. The first half of the verse lends the context we need to better fit this verse into an ancient Hebrew worldview, which simply did not extend into the afterlife. No such expectation existed at that time for everlasting, eternal life up in heaven.
Instead, a more accurate translation might be "And I shall dwell in the house of the Lord to the end of my days." But who wants to hear that at a funeral?
//Here is one of the most well-known verses in the Bible, certainly a favorite for funerals. We find great comfort in this idea of dwelling forever in the house of the Lord, once this life ends.
The meaning of "forever," however, was not at all then what it means to us today. The first half of the verse lends the context we need to better fit this verse into an ancient Hebrew worldview, which simply did not extend into the afterlife. No such expectation existed at that time for everlasting, eternal life up in heaven.
Instead, a more accurate translation might be "And I shall dwell in the house of the Lord to the end of my days." But who wants to hear that at a funeral?
November 6, 2012
Book review: Caiaphas, The High Priest
by Adele Reinhartz
★★★★★
I really didn't know quite what to expect of this book, but I'm such a first-century history geek that I couldn't resist taking it on. Would it be a dry history lesson? A bit of speculative guesswork, given that the historical record is so sparse? As much as a book about an ancient priest can be considered a page-turner, this one was for me. It was just an enjoyable read from cover to cover.
Caiaphas is, of course, the Jerusalem high priest in the time of Jesus. The unscrupulous, conniving villain who orchestrated Jesus’ death. Or did he? The Gospels—all four of them—portray Caiaphas as not much more than a neutral minor player.
But in the early centuries of Christianity, our church fathers quickly glommed onto Caiaphas as an antihero. An anonymous collection of "chief priests and scribes" as the God-killer wouldn't do; a proper villain was needed. Caiaphas filled the role splendidly, especially as anti-Semitism developed within the Church.
The Gospel account of Caiaphas “prophesying” in John 11:52 proved particularly troubling for the early church. How could such an ungodly character be a prophet? Origin spends a great deal of time on this conundrum, finally concluding that somehow, the despicable fellow managed to rather accidentally utter a prophecy.
Reinhartz then takes us on an enlightening romp through artwork, literature, theater, and Hollywood, exposing the dastardly role Caiaphas plays. Finally, the journey culminates in a more serious look at the Caiaphas of history, and the priestly role in general. Reinhartz’s visible fascination with this ancient character has made for a highly readable account.
[image error]
★★★★★
I really didn't know quite what to expect of this book, but I'm such a first-century history geek that I couldn't resist taking it on. Would it be a dry history lesson? A bit of speculative guesswork, given that the historical record is so sparse? As much as a book about an ancient priest can be considered a page-turner, this one was for me. It was just an enjoyable read from cover to cover.
Caiaphas is, of course, the Jerusalem high priest in the time of Jesus. The unscrupulous, conniving villain who orchestrated Jesus’ death. Or did he? The Gospels—all four of them—portray Caiaphas as not much more than a neutral minor player.
But in the early centuries of Christianity, our church fathers quickly glommed onto Caiaphas as an antihero. An anonymous collection of "chief priests and scribes" as the God-killer wouldn't do; a proper villain was needed. Caiaphas filled the role splendidly, especially as anti-Semitism developed within the Church.
The Gospel account of Caiaphas “prophesying” in John 11:52 proved particularly troubling for the early church. How could such an ungodly character be a prophet? Origin spends a great deal of time on this conundrum, finally concluding that somehow, the despicable fellow managed to rather accidentally utter a prophecy.
Reinhartz then takes us on an enlightening romp through artwork, literature, theater, and Hollywood, exposing the dastardly role Caiaphas plays. Finally, the journey culminates in a more serious look at the Caiaphas of history, and the priestly role in general. Reinhartz’s visible fascination with this ancient character has made for a highly readable account.
[image error]
November 5, 2012
Leviticus 15:25, The Plague of Uncleanness Spreads!
When a woman has a discharge of blood for many days at a time other than her monthly period or has a discharge that continues beyond her period, she will be unclean as long as she has the discharge, just as in the days of her period. Any bed she lies on while her discharge continues will be unclean, as is her bed during her monthly period, and anything she sits on will be unclean, as during her period. Whoever touches them will be unclean; he must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening.
//This matter of separating the clean from the unclean is a serious thing! A woman during her period is naturally unclean, but if the blood flow continues after the normal time of her period, she remains unclean. She cannot be touched. If she touches anything, then what she touches cannot be touched. Anyone who touches anything she touches likewise becomes unclean, and like a plague, uncleanness inadvertently begins spreading through the camp. The possibility for an outbreak of uncleanness becomes a serious threat.
One time, the plague threatened to get out of control. Consider these verses in Luke chapter 8:
And a woman was there who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years, but no one could heal her. She came up behind him and touched the edge of his cloak …"Who touched me?" Jesus asked. When they all denied it, Peter said, "Master, the people are crowding and pressing against you."
This poor woman had an “issue of blood” (the KJV wording) for twelve years! She remained perpetually unclean! Here she touches Jesus and turns him unclean, and everybody is jostling up against Jesus. Can you imagine the crowd panic when it’s discovered that a seed of uncleanness had been planted? Is there any chance of getting this plague under control?
Piece of cake. Turns out that a little human contact doesn’t start a plague, it just heals the one who is suffering. Probably, this was Jesus’ most important lesson of the day.
[image error]
//This matter of separating the clean from the unclean is a serious thing! A woman during her period is naturally unclean, but if the blood flow continues after the normal time of her period, she remains unclean. She cannot be touched. If she touches anything, then what she touches cannot be touched. Anyone who touches anything she touches likewise becomes unclean, and like a plague, uncleanness inadvertently begins spreading through the camp. The possibility for an outbreak of uncleanness becomes a serious threat.
One time, the plague threatened to get out of control. Consider these verses in Luke chapter 8:
And a woman was there who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years, but no one could heal her. She came up behind him and touched the edge of his cloak …"Who touched me?" Jesus asked. When they all denied it, Peter said, "Master, the people are crowding and pressing against you."
This poor woman had an “issue of blood” (the KJV wording) for twelve years! She remained perpetually unclean! Here she touches Jesus and turns him unclean, and everybody is jostling up against Jesus. Can you imagine the crowd panic when it’s discovered that a seed of uncleanness had been planted? Is there any chance of getting this plague under control?
Piece of cake. Turns out that a little human contact doesn’t start a plague, it just heals the one who is suffering. Probably, this was Jesus’ most important lesson of the day.
[image error]
November 3, 2012
Romans 16:7, The First Woman Apostle?
Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.
//Yesterday, I wondered whether Paul taught that men were granted a divine right to lord it over women. Let’s put things in perspective today with a look back at the church in the time of Paul.
According to the book of Romans, women seemed to hold positions of leadership in the early church, even being considered "apostles." But this equality between the sexes quickly fell into disfavor in the Church. Author Eldon Jay Epp writes in his book, Junia: The First Woman Apostle, about how Junia's role was buried through mistranslation and editing of her name so that it was rendered as a man's name instead. To preserve male authority, Junia became Junias, a man's name, in Latin, and remains this way today—see today's verse in the NIV. The gender debate is nearly over, however: that she was a woman is seldom contested today among Christian theologians.
Instead, those who would deny female leadership now focus on the meaning of "apostle." Did the term mean the equivalent of Paul, Timothy and Silas? Or should the translation read not "well-regarded apostles" but "well-known to the apostles?"
The debate continues, but my own position is settled. Junia may be the only named woman "apostle" in the Bible, but she is hardly the only woman in a position of respect, even leadership. You can read also about Phoebe, Prisca, Tryphaena and Tryphosa.
[image error]
//Yesterday, I wondered whether Paul taught that men were granted a divine right to lord it over women. Let’s put things in perspective today with a look back at the church in the time of Paul.
According to the book of Romans, women seemed to hold positions of leadership in the early church, even being considered "apostles." But this equality between the sexes quickly fell into disfavor in the Church. Author Eldon Jay Epp writes in his book, Junia: The First Woman Apostle, about how Junia's role was buried through mistranslation and editing of her name so that it was rendered as a man's name instead. To preserve male authority, Junia became Junias, a man's name, in Latin, and remains this way today—see today's verse in the NIV. The gender debate is nearly over, however: that she was a woman is seldom contested today among Christian theologians.
Instead, those who would deny female leadership now focus on the meaning of "apostle." Did the term mean the equivalent of Paul, Timothy and Silas? Or should the translation read not "well-regarded apostles" but "well-known to the apostles?"
The debate continues, but my own position is settled. Junia may be the only named woman "apostle" in the Bible, but she is hardly the only woman in a position of respect, even leadership. You can read also about Phoebe, Prisca, Tryphaena and Tryphosa.
[image error]
