The Cost of Freedom

Here in the USA as we celebrate the independence we enjoy, let us also consider the efforts of our forefathers and the ultimate price some paid for it.

May we also reflect on those in shackles—literal or figurative—in various ways, whether this is by unjust or even just jailing, through oppressive regimes or ideologies, etc. Let us remember and pray for all not yet free.

As Christians, let us also rejoice in the freedom we have—through God’s grace—in Christ. Let us remember and pray for those who have yet to experience their own freedom in Christ.

Let us never forget that freedom isn’t free. Let us never take for granted the price paid for eternal salvation. The price paid for all.

Redemption

From the hands it came down
From the side it came down
From the feet it came down
And ran to the ground
Between heaven and hell
A teardrop fell
In the deep crimson dew
The tree of life grew

And the blood gave life
To the branches of the tree
And the blood was the price
That set the captives free
And the numbers that came
Through the fire and the flood
Clung to the tree
And were redeemed by the blood

From the tree streamed a light
That started the fight
‘Round the tree grew a vine
On whose fruit I could dine
My old friend Lucifer came
Fought to keep me in chains
But I saw through the tricks
Of six-sixty-six

And the blood gave life
To the branches of the tree
And the blood was the price
That set the captives free
And the numbers that came
Through the fire and the flood
Clung to the tree
And were redeemed by the blood

From his hands it came down
From his side it came down
From the feet it came down
And ran to the ground
And a small inner voice
Said you do have a choice
The vine engrafted me
And I clung to the tree

————-

Written by John R. Cash
Published by Song of Cash, Inc. (ASCAP)
© 1994 American Recordings /℗ 1994 American Recordings. 2100 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica, CA 90404

 

Looking Past the Future

Looking at the present, the immediate future is uncertain. But of this I am sure: a much brighter future awaits us.

For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so will be the arrival of the Son of Man” (Matthew 24:27).

And the culmination of this future may resemble our distant past. Our very beginning. Before we fell into darkness.

In the Apocalypse—the book of Revelation—John the revelator describes the New Jerusalem (Rev 21:2, 10). A Throne is its centerpiece, its Sanctuary is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb (21:22). Light radiating from them obviates the sun, eliminates the night (21:23, 22:5). A Tree of Life is flanked by a life-giving river and a golden street (21:21), one as transparent as the other:1

1 Then the angel showed me a river with the water of life, clear as crystal, springing forth from the Throne of God and of the Lamb. 2 In between the city’s great street and the river stands a Tree of Life2 producing twelve fruits, corresponding to each month of the year, yielding one fruit per month. The leaves of the Tree provide healing for the people. 3 No longer will any curse be. The Throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and His servants will serve Him. 4 They will see His face, and His Name will be on their foreheads. 5 Night will no longer exist: They will have no need of lamplight or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will shed light upon them. And they will reign forevermore (Rev 22:1-5).

No curse! No night, no darkness! I have long championed the slogan “Water is life”, a maxim all the more true in the New Jerusalem.

May I endure to the end (Matthew 24:13), thereby finding my name included in the Lamb’s book of life (Rev 21:27). I sure could use some of those healing leaves.

Behold! I am coming soon” (Rev 22:12).

____________________________

1 What follows is my own translation.

2 This first part of the verse proved very difficult to translate. The Greek is:  ἐν μέσῳ τῆς πλατείας αὐτῆς καὶ τοῦ ποταμοῦ ἐντεῦθεν καὶ ἐκεῖθεν ξύλον ζωῆς, en mesō̧ tēs plateias autēs kai tou potamou enteuthen kai ekeithen xylon zōēs. Translating as literally as possible: in middle/midst of-the great-street of-it and the river from-here and from-there tree of-life. There is no finite verb in this entire verse—something not uncommon in Scripture. The first clause up to “of-it” is a dative, but does it go with the main verb of 22:1 (“springing forth”) or are we to assume—and thus add in—a verb in 22:2? For me, it seemed nonsensical to envision a river flowing down the middle of a street (and with a tree or trees in the middle of it), so I looked for other options. I found the International Standard Version’s translation to make the most sense: the dative clause was to be applied to verse 2 rather than 1. The key for me was understanding “from here and from there” as helping to explain—as a rephrasing of—“in the midst”. In this way, the verse is understood in the middle of the city’s great street and the river, from here [the river—the focus from v. 1] and from there [the great street] (stands) a Tree of Life. From this understanding, I decided to omit “from here and from there”, thus rendering the first two words “in between” as a compromise.

Looking Forward to the Past

I saw this sign this morning:

future is past

Tangled Up in Quasi-Truth

We just saw it from a different point of view
Tangled up in blue1

I must admit I sometimes feel blue. At times there seems to be no reason for it. Other times there is.

When writing Christian apologetics—from the Greek word apologia, as found in 1 Peter 3:15 (…always ready to provide a defense to everyone who asks…)—it is imperative to do so with utmost integrity. We must uphold truth when defending the Truth. When I see quasi-truths and pseudo-truths in apologetics, I sometimes literally shake my head in sadness. Sometimes I get a bit angry. It’s disconcerting.

In this disinformation age, we are bombarded with partial truths and outright lies. Discerning truth from fiction can be quite difficult. Consequently, when assessing questionable conspiracy theories,2 we must be very careful not to fall into the same trap of connecting unrelated things in our critiques of them.3 I’m reminded of the cautionary words of Rabbi Samuel Sandmel:

It would seem to me to follow that, in dealing with similarities we can sometimes discover exact parallels, some with and some devoid of significance; seeming parallels which are so only imperfectly; and statements which can be called parallels only by taking them out of context.4

Recently, I came across On Point Preparedness, a ministry delving in end times (eschatology) and apologetics. I want to think Mike—the sole writer and vlogger—is sincere in his endeavors. Perhaps it would be fair that I give him as much benefit of the doubt as he gives the subjects in his critiques. In any case, I found a number of issues with some of his analyses, some egregious enough to induce me to write this blog post.

Going Off Point5

I’ve timestamped the clip below where On Point Preparedness (OPP) displays audio and video of a President Trump Rally just before the song “Sympathy for the Devil” is played.6

The clip provides lyrics to accompany the song for a bit. Then the vlogger segues to a snippet of a Bob Dylan interview, which OPP prefaces with these words:

Oh, and by the way, this song by Bob Dylan “Sympathy for the Devil”—yeah. You remember this interview where he said that he serves Satan, right?

Now, this is the part where I shake my head in dismay, disappointment. And then I get angry. This is extremely sloppy “journalism”. First of all, in the clip of Dylan’s words, the songwriter just does not say he “serves Satan”. The vlogger puts those words in Dylan’s mouth. Either that, or OPP meant to paraphrase Dylan’s supposed intended meaning. Can this meaning be inferred? Perhaps. But before making such a charge, intellectual integrity demands a search for the larger context in order to provide sufficient evidence to justify it.7 And further below, I provide such larger context, illustrating there is more likely a very different meaning intended here.

To outright assert that someone said thus-and-such without explicit proof is just inexcusable. And potentially libelous. Dylan’s lyrics below are appropriated for my purposes here:

Someone’s got in for me
They’re planting stories in the press
Whoever it is I wish they’d cut it out quick
When they will I can only guess.8

Oh, and by the way, this song “Sympathy for the Devil”—whatever one thinks of it—was written by Mick Jagger and Keith Richards of THE ROLLING STONES, and the song in the clip was performed by this same band. Though Bob Dylan most certainly wrote and performed the song “Like a Rolling Stone”, he just as certainly is not THE ROLLING STONES. There is absolutely no excuse for this kind of carelessness (confirmation bias?).9 Similar to the above, journalistic integrity requires a quick search to verify information before publishing. Even if the rest of his content was just fine, merely this one slip can render the entire document suspect by some viewers. But this is not the only issue here.

Below is the larger context of the interview—a 60 Minutes interview with Ed Bradley on November 19, 2004. At the time of original airing, the songwriter had just recently published his book Chronicles, Volume One (September 5, 2004). Take special note of the use of the word “destiny”. Italics indicate the portion OPP selected for his vlog (near the end); bold is my emphasis:

Ed Bradley: You use the word “destiny” over and over throughout the book. What does it mean to you?
Bob Dylan: It’s a feeling you have that you know something about yourself that nobody else does – the picture you have in your mind of what you’re about will come true. It’s kind of a thing you kind of have to keep to your own self, because it’s a fragile feeling. And if you put it out there, somebody will kill it. So, it’s best to keep that all inside.

EB: Let me talk a little bit about your relationship with the media. You wrote, “The press, I figured, you lied to it.” Why?
BD: I realized at the time that the press, the media, they’re not the judge—God’s the judge. The only person you have to think about lying twice to is either yourself or to God. The press isn’t either of them. And I just figured they’re irrelevant.

EB: As you probably know, Rolling Stone magazine just named your song, “Like a Rolling Stone,” the number one song of all time. 12 of your other songs are on their list of the Top 500. That must be good to have as part of your legacy.
BD: Oh, maybe this week. But you know, the list, they change names, and you know, quite frequently, really. I don’t really pay much attention to that.
EB: But it’s a pat on the back?
BD: This week it is. But who’s to say how long that’s gonna last?
EB: Well, it’s lasted a long time for you. I mean you’re still out here doing these songs, you know. You’re still on tour.
BD: I do, but I don’t take it for granted.
EB: Why do you still do it? Why are you still out here?
BD: Well, it goes back to that destiny thing. I made a d-, bargain with it, you know, long time ago. And I’m holding up my end.
EB: What was your bargain?
BD: …to get where, uh, I am now.
EB: Should I ask who you made that bargain with?
BD: [laughs] With the Chief Commander.
EB: On this earth?
BD: [laughs] In this earth and in the world we can’t see.

When Dylan states, “…bargain with it…”, to what does the “it” refer? By the context, the referent is “destiny”. So, who is the “Chief Commander” that is “in this earth and in the world we can’t see”? Note that earlier in the interview Dylan referred to “God”, stating He is the Judge, and the only One—besides yourself—that you should carefully consider before lying twice to. Could that help define “Chief Commander” here?

To this analysis the critic must also consider Dylan’s professed conversion to Christianity in 1979. The artist made three overtly Christian-themed albums: Slow Train Coming (1979), Saved (1980), and Shot of Love (1981).10 The first of the three recordings opens with his Grammy-winning “Gotta Serve Somebody”, featuring these lyrics in the chorus:

But you’re gonna have to serve somebody, yes
Indeed you’re gonna have to serve somebody
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you’re gonna have to serve somebody

Closing this same album, “When He Returns” includes words taken (paraphrased) from Scripture: Like a thief in the night, he’ll replace wrong with right when he returns. And then there’s this clip “Bob Dylan – The Gospel Interview”, an excerpt from the documentary Bob Dylan – Both Ends Of The Rainbow 1978-1989.

Was this all just a ruse, a hoax? That seems very unlikely, for Dylan had not a few angry fans during this time claiming he was preaching at them in concerts. John Lennon even went so far as to write the parody “Serve Myself” in response. Assuming, then, that Dylan’s conversion was genuine, did he subsequently reverse course? Did he renounce his profession of Christian faith to the extent he now “serves Satan” instead? Can evidence be found for this? If so, I’d like to see it.

The vlogger later circles back to his earlier assertion about Bob Dylan, this time claiming he is “the guy that sold his soul to the devil”. This prefaces his syllogistic position that Dylan’s new song “Murder Most Foul” is somehow related to “Q”, and, by extension, implicitly “QAnon”, because the track is ~17 minutes long, and—well—Q is the 17th letter of the English alphabet, and there’s been an established connection between QAnon and the number 17.11 More on this below.

The song is about the assassination of JFK. For OPP it’s the following lyrics providing some sort of smoking gun:

The day that they killed him, someone said to me, “Son,
The age of the Antichrist has just only begun”

The vlogger focuses on “The age of the Antichrist”, as if these words in this context provide some sort of proof of malevolent spiritual connection to OPP’s (unproven) assertion that Dylan “sold his soul to the devil”. I can only guess how the vlogger connects this to QAnon.12

Besides the illogic, and nebulous nature of any sort of connection, there are other problems here and more things to factor in.

By illogic, I mean why would Dylan write a lyric about “the age of the Antichrist” if he had “sold his soul to the devil”? Wouldn’t he—or, more specifically, the supposed malevolent spirit guiding him—be more inclined to conceal this fact about “the age of the Antichrist” having begun? Since John’s first epistle indicates that the ‘age of Antichrist’ had already begun by the time that letter was penned (1 John 2:18), this means if we take the song at face value, JFK’s assassination would more likely be the revealing of the Antichrist, aka “the lawless one” (2 Thessalonians 2:8). If “the lawless one” has been revealed (to discerning Christians), then who is it? Frankly, I think OPP needs to acquire a better grasp of the nature of poetry and songwriting.

The vlogger also implies Dylan was aware of this ‘Q = 17’ connection, yet fails to provide any sort of evidence for this.13 But this does not stop OPP from making further tenuous connections based on this unproven link.

OPP makes a big deal out of the song’s ~17 minutes length (“which is incredibly odd”, per the vlogger), but is this really so out of the ordinary? Dylan has recorded quite a few lengthy songs throughout his career. While “Murder Most Foul” is the longest song in Dylan’s discography, there is a close second: “Highlands” from Time Out of Mind, at 16:31.14 Comparatively, “Murder Most Foul”, as hosted on Dylan’s own YouTube channel, clocks in at 16:56, just 25 seconds longer. In listening to the song, it is packed full of lyrics, with no instrumental break, a very brief intro, and a 30 second outro. Thus, even if it were sung a cappella at the same tempo, it would be nearly 17 minutes long. So, it is not as though the song was stretched out in an effort to reach ~17 minutes.

More to the point, if I was Dylan and I wanted to link the song to Q as suggested by OPP, I’d make darn sure that it was exactly 17 minutes—not a second over or under. If Q = 17, then Q ≠ 16:56. For me, this fact alone is a fatal flaw in his analysis.

But that’s not all.

In the first comment to the above hyperlinked video (audio) of the song is this statement by Dylan, pinned by the songwriter himself:

This is an unreleased song we recorded a while back that you might find interesting. Stay safe, stay observant and may God be with you.

Setting aside the final clause (bolded above), Dylan recorded this song “a while back”.15 To assume it was recorded within the past 3 or so years—to coincide with the era of QAnon—is to assume too much.

Finally, after “Murder Most Foul” Dylan put out two more songs. And concurrent with his most recent song release “False Prophet” (on May 8, 2020), the songwriter announced the near-future release of a new album, which will contain all three songs. Thus, “Murder Most Foul” didn’t ‘come out of nowhere’ as some sort of mysterious one-off. The timing of the release—and the subsequent releases—was obviously calculated to build interest for his forthcoming full-length album. This is a pretty standard marketing ploy.

¿Qué?16

Perhaps the intent is not so much to link Bob Dylan specifically to QAnon, but to “Q” more generally. In this sense, per OPP, “Q” would then be the spiritual glue binding all these seemingly—in the mind of the vlogger—disparate pieces together. The video below makes such a connection:

OPP bases this on (a) a false equivalency, which results in (b) a dubious connection to (c) a questionable claim in a self-published book (@ 10:02):

When I saw that, I was like, “OK, that is pretty amazing.” That’s really the spiritual influence of why “Q” has been adopted.

This will require a bit of explanation. I’ll start with (c), the questionable claim in the book.

Catherine R. Proppe, in her 2013 book Greek Alphabet: Unlock the Secrets, claims that each Greek letter of the alphabet has a “secret meaning” attached. The author has her own webpage, and since the koppa (Ϙ) is the subject here, I will direct now to that specific page on her blog. Proppe appears to have some proficiency with Greek, but I must question her claim that the koppa means “piercing-the-veil” (as per the link) or “PIERCING-THE-VEIL of ignorance and separation” (as per the book). Viewing the above hyperlink to the author’s webpage, note how Proppe provides web-links as support for some of her statements.17 Yet, the writer provides no such reference, no documentation for this “secret meaning” for koppa. Same with the book.

A quick internet search yields no specific results for “piercing the veil” except its use in a legal sense as a shortened form of “piercing the corporate veil”. However, though interpreted differently, the word “veil” is found in contexts related to the tearing of the Temple veil at Jesus’ death (Matthew 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45) in various esoteric and occult works of the past century.18  A quick scouring of my Greek resources finds no reference to this “secret meaning” as of yet. Thus, I would agree that the esoteric concept of crossing some sort of veil has been in existence for a while, but so far nothing suggests that this specific phraseology is at least somewhat commonly used currently, or had been used previously in antiquity, in relation to the Greek letter koppa.

The bottom line: I find no substantiation for Proppe’s claimed “secret meaning” for the Greek letter koppa. To be clear, this does not necessarily render the claim false. But without supporting evidence for the author’s assertion, I remain unconvinced. For the vlogger to uncritically accept this claim is problematic. We must always verify the veracity of material to the extent possible. Especially if it is used to negatively characterize individuals or works.

Now, turning to (a), the false equivalency—providing some historical background on the koppa will be necessary.

The Greek alphabet underwent some changes throughout its history, with some letters deleted, others added. Today there are 24 letters—the same 24 as from the pre-NT era. At one point in antiquity (ca. 6th – 5th BC?) there were 27 letters. During this time the Greeks adopted an alphanumeric system in which each letter corresponds to a number.  This system is still in place today. The first nine letters are numbered sequentially (1 through 9). The next nine letters are consecutive multiples of 10. The koppa was sequentially the 18th letter, and thus represented the number 90. That is, Ϙ = 90.

Shortly after the establishing of the alphanumeric system, the koppa was deleted from the alphabet (ca. 5th century BC).19 But it was retained solely for their alphanumeric system (the Greeks had no other way of expressing numbers at the time except to fully write them out, such as, e.g., the English ninety).

The first Greek alphabet was modeled after the Phoenician. The koppa came from the similar looking Phoenician qoph. The history of the English Q is something like this:

Phoenician qoph > Greek koppa (Ϙ, similar to qoph) > Old Italic Etruscan (same as koppa) > Old Latin (~Q) > Classic Latin (~Q) > Old English (~Q) > Modern English (Q)

An important point to reiterate is that the Greek koppa has not been used as a letter since about the 5th century BC—except for rare carry-overs, and even these were phased out well before the NT era. As an example and an interesting side note: I learned from Proppe’s book, via the vlog above, that the city of Corinth (as in I and II Corinthians), was first spelled with an initial koppa (Ϙ)20—appropriate for the time. Before the NT era, it was replaced with the kappa (K). But the koppa (Ϙ) letter remained on Corinthian coinage for a time. See it just below the winged Pegasus in the image.

Qoppa

Koppa under Pegasus

Given that the koppa ceased in use as a letter, this is another reason I remain skeptical of Proppe’s claims. Strictly speaking, the koppa hasn’t been in the Greek alphabet since ~5th century BC. Moreover, when used as a number, it is identified as such by additional markings or different renderings of the character.21 Thus, the writer’s implicit claim that it is part of the Greek alphabet (as in the title of the book) is anachronistic, or imprecise, at best. At worst, it is just wrong. In short, the information is unreliable.

Setting aside the murky nature of the author’s characterization of the koppa, OPP begins his discussion by making the claim that the English letter Q means “piercing the veil” (@ 8:58), even though the words on the page are about the Greek koppa (Ϙ) instead. He continues to conflate the Greek koppa with the English Q throughout. But Proppe never, not once, makes a connection to the English Q on the page.22

Thus, there is no basis to assume Proppe intended her “secret meaning” be imported to the English letter Q, much less to the current cult of Q (whether it be QAnon or any of the others he attempts to connect). Yet, this scarcely prevents the vlogger from syllogistically assuming it does, leading him to his dogmatic assertion that “The [English] letter Q is about ‘PIERCING-THE-VEIL of ignorance and separation’” (@ 9:56).

This (a) false equivalency (Ϙ = Q) leads to (b) the dubious connection to (c) a questionable claim (as regards “PIERCING…”), leading OPP (d) to syllogistically conclude: “That’s really the spiritual influence of why Q has been adopted…” (@ 10:07). This is a non sequitur. Even if a definitive link were established between the koppa and the Q and if Proppe’s “secret meaning” were true, this does not necessarily mean that all the associations of “Q” must come from this meaning. There are numerous possible reasons for the use of “Q”. One might speculate that this could be a possible connection (again, had there been a definitive link between koppa and Q as well as substantiation for Proppe’s “secret meaning” for the koppa), but to make an explicit claim that this-is-definitely-that in this case is both illogical and irresponsible.

Taking all the above, I hope the reader can see that Bob Dylan has been unfairly mischaracterized based on nebulous connections.

At 10:55 OPP states, “…Now you just can’t really make this stuff up…” as part of his conclusion. Now if I were to apply some of the methods used throughout the two vlogs referenced above, I could take just this statement and apply it to him. That is, taking the words “you just can’t really make this stuff up”, I could counter that the vlogger did, in fact, do just that—by wresting various words from their original contexts to create pretexts, using false equivalencies, making syllogistic connections to reach his own conclusions, etc. But that wouldn’t be right, would it?

Digressing for a moment, and being a bit tongue-in-cheek, I can just envision New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) “Apostle” Chuck Pierce embracing all this. He has not one, but two points (pun intended) of connection! Not only is his last name Pierce (Pierce-ing the veil!) his “ministry” is headquartered in Corinth, Texas! He could substitute either the Greek koppa or the English “Q” in place of the English “C” in Corinth! In fact, it’s rather curious that he hasn’t done so, given the analysis here by OPP. That is, if “this is really the spiritual influence of why ‘Q’ has been adopted”, surely Chuck Pierce would be aware of all these “connections”.

But Seriously

This was one of the most difficult blog posts—if not the most difficult one—I’ve written. I wanted to be fair to OPP, to everyone involved. It can be difficult to be completely objective in the best of circumstances. With this in mind, I must admit—and I did above—that I became a bit angry at times when analyzing the material. I hope it was righteous anger—in response to what I felt was unfair treatment to some individuals and the material. And I hope it didn’t negatively cloud the results. My sporadic injections of a bit of sarcasm and humor were attempts to diffuse it, I suppose. I’ll let the reader be the judge of the analyses.

One of my goals is to bring awareness to our predisposition (1) to read things strictly through our own perspectives and (2) to fall into logical fallacies. Everyone does these things. This means we all must take a few steps back when analyzing data to see if it can be read a bit differently and to be sure our conclusions follow the data. We must be careful that we don’t construct our own questionable conspiracy theories.

Preparing Christian apologetics is hard work. Disentangling problematic apologetics takes just as much if not more effort.

As apologists, defenders of the Christian faith, we should do our very best to get it right the first time, doing so with intellectual honesty and the utmost integrity. And humility.

ps:

Comments, whether pro or con, are welcome. I ask that they relate to the main subjects presented in this post. I don’t wish to get bogged down with discussions regarding QAnon, for example. That is NOT why I posted this; that is only peripheral to my main objective, which was to present a more balanced view of the material analyzed, particularly as it relates to Bob Dylan.

______________________________________

1 “Tangled Up in Blue”, Bob Dylan, from the 1974 album Blood on the Tracks (Columbia Records PC 233235), published by Rams Horn Music, 1974.

2 Here I use the modifier “questionable” because the term conspiracy theory has become a pejorative, a means by which to stifle conversation about a topic with which a person or group disagrees. When police detectives uncover racketeering—organized crime—it is after having an initial theory of a conspiracy, a hunch about individuals conspiring together in crime. In the beginning stages of the investigation, it is a conspiracy theory. Though the term should be neutral, in today’s socio-political environment and vernacular, it’s mostly used to disparage adherents to a particular theory.

3 Thereby creating our own questionable conspiracy theories.

4 “Parallelomania”, Journal of Biblical Literature Vol 81 (1962): 1-13, p 7

5 I must confess that I stumbled upon the music linked to here. I was searching to see if “off point” had a meaning in today’s lingo, which I see it does. I kinda like the song, but more importantly the lyric here is apropos: Connect all disparate dots and label them as true / you’re straying off point / fixed kaleidoscopic views.

6 The vlogger attempts to make a direct connection of a nefarious nature between this song and President Trump (and Rally attendees?), as if Trump specifically requests this song and is sympathetic to the devil himself. Prior to this, he selectively quotes a line from The Animals song “House of the Rising Sun” in an attempt to malign Trump. The line he chooses as his proof-text is spend your lives in sin and misery, as if the song is glorifying this sort of life (who would want “sin and misery”?!). However, when the lyrics are put into proper context, the intention is the exact opposite: Oh mother, tell your children / Not to do what I have done / Spend your lives in sin and misery / In the House of the Rising Sun… And it’s been the ruin of many a poor boy / And God, I know I’m one. This is what passes for “journalism” in this vlog.  This pseudo-truth is the first tenuous connection I am exposing in my blog post here, but since I do not wish to bog down this article with the myriad issues in the vlog, thereby making this post intolerably long, I am relegating information unrelated to my main subject—the unnecessary maligning of Bob Dylan centering on a conspiracy theory surrounding the letter Q—to footnotes.

7 In checking around the internet, there are a number of vloggers and bloggers taking just this segment from the interview to arrive at their presumed prejudged conclusion. Perhaps this vlogger, after seeing one or more of these, decided that if this was good enough evidence for others, this was good enough for him.

8 “Idiot Wind”, from Blood on the Tracks. To my mind, the lyrics quoted here are true, autobiographical; and, the next few lines are hyperbolic, thereby analogically illustrating the ridiculous lengths the media would sometimes go to mischaracterize Dylan. This then sets up his caustic chorus.

9 I’m reminded now of lyrics in a Neil Young song: sometimes I see what really isn’t there—taken from “Will to Love”, from the 1977 album American Stars and Bars (Reprise Records MSK 2261), published by Silver Fiddle-BMI, 1977. In the context of Young’s song, the line refers to wishful thinking, aka confirmation bias.

10 To digress for a moment, I once had a discussion (ca. 2009) with another Christian man who confidently asserted that the 1974 album Blood on the Tracks—an album with which I’ve been well-acquainted with since the mid-‘70s—was a Christian record, presumably on the strength of Dylan’s Christian-themed records here. When I objected, given my strong familiarity with the record—it’s probably my favorite Dylan album—and providing evidence to the contrary via some of its lyrics and the fact that Dylan’s profession of Christian faith first occurred in 1979, he yet remained steadfast. It seems many will just stay comfortably in their false beliefs, despite evidence contradicting them.

11 Some have already associated QAnon with the letter Q, and by extension, the number 17. Also, President Trump has been presented with jerseys with his name and the number 17 on it. But, this only proves that the maker(s) of the shirts made the connection, not necessarily that Trump has (though maybe he has, and what would that prove, anyway?). But, this is all tangential, for, more importantly, the vlogger fails to provide any evidence that Dylan was even aware of this Q = 17 connection.

12 And (in the mind of the vlogger), by further extension, President Trump?

13 That is, besides the implied circular logic of Q = 17, and the song is ~17 minutes, which must be a reference to Q, which means Dylan is aware of the connection. But, I digress. In any case, absent any proof, I am unwilling to grant this.

14 I have the album (gasp!), so I was already aware of its timing.

15 Though it is possible it was recorded in the past 3 or so years—during the time of QAnon—I note that Dylan’s last album of his own material (as opposed to covers of others’ works) Tempest was released in 2012. It could be that “Murder Most Foul” was from the Tempest recording sessions or perhaps earlier. His most recent album (which only includes works written by others), while it lists no recording date, was released March 31, 2017. All this to say, the song most likely was recorded before QAnon came on the scene. But we just don’t know.

16 Spanish for What? It is used here because some confuse “que” (or qué) with the spelling for the English letter “Q” (which is cue), thus implicitly analogically illustrating the confusions and conflations of the vlogger. It’s a play on words relating to the entire section. (Unfortunately, this is the kind of thing that tends to lose its impact when explained.)

17 No matter how tenuous those connections might be, e.g.: The constellation Pegasus is best visible during the month of October, the month immediately following the fall equinox, when nighttime hours first exceed daylight hours, enabling better viewing of the stars which pierce-the-veil of the night sky. Though I like the poetic phrasing here (the stars which pierce-the-veil of the night sky), I don’t see how any of this relates to the koppa. Perhaps it is something like the following. Since the Corinthians used the koppa as a symbol for their city (see further below), and the koppa was placed on the back of coins under the winged Pegasus—which is associated with local mythology—this, I presume, means the author should connect the constellation of Pegasus to koppa because, by syllogistic extension, its stars “pierce-the-veil” of the sky at night (by using the bottom point of a koppa?). Or something like that.

18 In some it is a metaphysical spin on the tearing of the veil in the Temple at the time of Jesus’ death: E.g. “veil”, Unity School of Christianity, Metaphysical Bible Dictionary, 8th ed. (Lee’s Summit, MO: Unity School of Christianity, 1955 [1931]), p 673. Other esoteric works put a metaphorical meaning on the tearing of the Temple veil instead: E.g. Alice A. Bailey The Rays and the Initiations © 1960 Lucis, NY, 2nd paperback ed. (Albany, NY: Fort Orange Press, 1976), pp 475, 491, 702. Cf. the section titled The Two Realms of the Manifested Son of God for the quote from a Bill Britton booklet here: Assessing Bill Johnson’s “Eternally God” Declarations Amidst His Other Christological Statements. Still others take the entire Biblical tearing of the veil phrase figuratively to refer to something else: E.g. Alice A. Bailey The Externalisation of the Hierarchy, © 1957 Lucis, NY (Albany, NY: Fort Orange Press, 6th printing, 1981), pp 4, 6. I find no use of the term in the glossaries of Blavatsky’s books; and, while this does not mean the term is not found in those works, it does indicate that, if used, it likely has little significance.

19 Or the koppa had previously been deleted and subsequently placed back into its former spot strictly for the alphanumeric system. 27 letters were needed to fill out the alphanumeric system (nine single digits, nine tens, and nine one-hundreds). The koppa sounded much like the kappa—like the English K—and thus was redundant.

20 That I have learned something new, something of particular interest to me, makes the time and effort spent on this well worth it.

21 See here.

22 Yes, the author briefly associates the Greek koppa with the Latin letter Q, but not once does the writer state anything at all about English and, by extension, the English Q. Her subject is the Greek koppa.

Reading Scripture—and Modern Times—through an Honor/Shame Culture Perspective

Many times I will go to bed with local Christian radio on. Perhaps this accounts, at least in part, for my occasional feeling of sleep debt.

Last night—I realize now this was at 4 AM!—I caught part of a very engaging monologue by Abdu Murray from RZIM (Ravi Zacharias International Ministries). In my semi-conscious state, I knew I had to investigate this further, later in the morning when I would be more lucid. The title of this podcast is “Evangelism in an Honor and Shame Culture, Part 1”. Below is the audio. I cannot recommend it enough:

[Side note: I am saddened by the recent death of Ravi Zacharias; I really enjoy/ed listening to him.]

One of the points Murray argues is that this cultural norm of honor versus shame in the Middle East and the East is becoming more commonplace in the West. He is absolutely correct! This can be found in the “virtue signaling” and social media tirades against those who dare disagree with the Leftist position on a given subject. From this perspective, a person adhering to a particular belief which is at odds with Leftist ideology does not merely render said person guilty of wrong-belief on this subject, but one who is inherently bad! This wrong-thought then not only deems the entire person malevolent, but extends to anyone who defends this particular belief of said person. Thus, the social media mobs not only attack the one person who subscribes to said belief, but to anyone who defends this person’s belief in any shape or form—including their free speech right—regardless of the rest of the defender’s worldviews. One strike, you’re out. You’re ostracized. Cancelled. You’re inherently bad, too.

Murray uses the account of the man born blind and subsequently healed by Jesus in John 9 as a base text. One of the main points he makes centers on a very astute observation regarding John 9:19 (~15 minutes into the podcast). Murray rightly emphasizes the “you”—something I’d not found in any of the numerous commentaries I consulted on this matter. Though he does not explain his reasoning for why he views this as emphatic, below I will illustrate how Murray is correct in his expression of this particular passage.

First, I must add the following related comment. While searching the RZIM site for this podcast, I came across a brief article by Margaret Manning Shull titled, “A Face for the Faceless”. In it, she covers some of the same territory as Murray. The following section merits inclusion here (emphasis added):

The story of the man born blind in John’s gospel is a fitting example of a more collective honor and shame culture: “Who sinned,” the disciples asked Jesus, “This man or his parents that he was born blind?” Here, the belief that someone else’s sins could be borne by another is striking. After Jesus healed this man’s blindness, the religious leaders question the blind man’s parents. His parents didn’t want to speak on his behalf “for fear of the Jews, for the Jews had already agreed that if anyone should confess Jesus as Messiah, he was to be put out of the synagogue” (See John 9:20-23). To be put out of the synagogue was to be excommunicated from God, family, and society—and to bear the burden of collective shame and dishonor. The son was already in a dishonorable state because of his blindness. One false move by the parents and they would suffer the same fate.

Note that it’s not merely individual but collective shame.

“…whom you say…”

This section will necessarily be a bit technical—though I don’t think it is too much so. For those with limited time and/or shortened attention spans (a byproduct of our “social media” culture)—though this section is not very lengthy—please go to the final section for my important closing comments. With this brief preface out of the way, I shall proceed.

In Greek, all finite verbs encode both person (1st, 2nd, or 3rd person) and number (singular or plural), though not gender. (Stay with me!) Given this, in Greek a complete sentence can be made with just one verb, as Jesus does with his final word on the Cross (John 19:30): Tetelestai. The verb here is a 3rd person singular, which, on the surface, could be either masculine (he is finished), feminine (she is finished), or neuter (it is finished). But by the context we can clearly discern that it should be the neuter it is finished. Thus, adding a pronoun (or noun) is unnecessary in the Greek. Now, certainly, the question of just what was finished is a big one; however, the point here is that it wasn’t a “she” or a “he” that was finished in the context of John 19:30.

If this seems a bit confusing, don’t let this detain you just yet. I think any confusion will be quickly cleared up as I explain the specific clause in John 9:19. Below is the Greek text, under that its transliteration (substituting English letters for the Greek), a rough translation is beneath that, which is followed by my translation. I placed brackets [ ] around the implied pronouns encoded in the two finite verbs below:

ὃν ὑμεῖς λέγετε ὅτι τυφλὸς ἐγεννήθη
hon hymeis legete hoti typhlos egennēthē
whom you [you-]say that blind [he-]was-born
whom you say {that} was born blind

Beginning our discussion with the last word, the verb “was-born” (egennēthē), the encoded person/number is 3rd person singular. Since the context makes it clear that the referent is the man born blind, we know that “he” is the implied pronoun, not “it” or “she”. Thus, adding a pronoun is unnecessary in the Greek. (And in English it would be improper to translate the implied “he”.)

The third word, the verb “say” (legete), has the 2nd person plural encoded. This is in reference to the parents of the now-healed man. Since the context makes the referent clear, then, once again, adding a pronoun is unnecessary in the Greek. (Of course this “you” must be translated into English in order to make sense of the passage.) However, the Greek text also includes the 2nd person plural pronoun hymeis (“you”), even though, as we just noted, this pronoun is unnecessary to convey what was meant. Thus, this is not a redundancy; this is to make the “you” emphatic.

So here [some of] “the Jews” (hoi Ioudaioi) were trying to shame the parents of the man born blind by implicitly accusing them of lying about the blindness of their son—since these Jews assumed the formerly-blind-but-now-healed man had been lying all this time about his own blindness. The other option—that Jesus, that “sinner”, healed him—was beyond the realm of possibility in their figuratively blinded eyes. But this was also a set-up. If the parents were to affirm his blindness from birth, then, in “the Jews” darkened eyes, they would also be an implied party to his “purported” healing by Jesus. This is why the parents claimed ignorance of just how their son was healed and then deferred to their son—to let him speak on his own, thus making him the sole one ‘guilty’ of this—so that they would not face expulsion from the synagogue. Better to let the son face the dishonor and shame by himself. They didn’t wish to share it with him.

Take a listen to the podcast to hear the other (explicit) points the speaker makes.

Concluding Near-Field Digression

I must end this blog post with somewhat of a digression, though not far at all from where I started. I count myself as blessed to live in a place—namely San Antonio, Texas—that has excellent programming (largely so, but discernment required) on Christian radio. This includes both KDRY (AM 1100) and KSLR (AM 630). Programs include both internationally recognized voices and local pastors/teachers. For those in the local area, I suggest you check them out. For non-locals, there may be programming available in your area. Moreover, I’m aware that KDRY can be listened to online or through a mobile app. For those with the financial wherewithal, donations are appreciated, of course.

Silence Punctuated Occasionally by Music

“…When the musicians saw the score, they cried out: ‘Where is the music?’ But then they went on to play it very well. It was beautiful; it was quiet and beautiful.”

— Arvo Pärt1

OK, I confess I’m being a bit hyperbolic with the title. But music can be as much about the space/time between the surrounding notes—the silence—as about the notes themselves. This space can evoke a sense of tranquility, melancholia, anticipation, drama, etc. or combinations thereof.  Both Arvo Pärt and Erik Satie exemplify this approach of placing more distance between notes on the page, to varying degrees, in some of their compositions.

Pärt:

Arvo Part

Arvo Pärt was previously featured in a blog post about 1.5 years ago. That post centered on the music of, lyrics to, and background of one brief choral prayer of peace. Below is a bit more biographical data on the man as well as some historical background on his oeuvre:

Arvo Pärt began his series of orchestral works with an obituary—but one that was at the same time the start of something new. Written in the year 1959 while he was a student at the conservatory in Tallinn, Necrology is the first piece by the Estonian composer to make use of serial music—a scandal for Soviet aesthetics. And so Pärt began what was to be an eventful life as a composer alternating between periods of withdrawal in the search for a style and periods of considerable creative output. Since the early ‘60s, Pärt (who was born in 1935) has traveled between the extremes of official recognition and official censure. Our Garden for children’s choir and orchestra (1959) and the oratorio The Pace of the World (1961) were awarded the first prize in composition in Moscow in 1962. Because of its text—“I believe in Jesus Christ”—Credo for piano, choir and orchestra, was banned.2

The quote at the beginning of this blog post (Where is the music?) is a reference to one of Pärt’s most famous pieces, Tabula rasa (Latin for “clean slate”), composed of two movements. Below is a performance of this work by the Estonian National Symphony Orchestra, under the direction of Paavo Järvi, with Viktoria Mullova (1st violin), Florian Donderer (2nd violin), and Liam Dunachie (prepared piano):


In many of the renditions I have heard the second movement is played too hurriedly. The above rendering is suitably slow. Near the end of the piece only one bass viol remains, and in its solitude it grows ever quieter until it ceases altogether, acquiescing to the increasing scarcity of musical notation.

Below is, in my opinion, the best complete live performance currently on YouTube (disregard the grainy video; the audio is clear enough). Inexplicably, however, the initial strokes of each of the violins are omitted (each instrument is to actuate its own note—different from the other—and is to play in unison with the other). In the first movement (Ludus), the diminuendo portion is slower-paced than the intervening crescendos, thus providing a fittingly moving contrast. The final movement (Silentium, beginning at 11:26) is paced at what I deem to be the right tempo, resulting in a more delicately rounded prepared piano tone—not somewhat abruptly truncated like faster readings—every note retaining appropriate distinction and intonation:

My favorite rendition, though, is found in the (premier?) ECM Records WDR (West German Radio) recording of November 1977, featuring the Lithuanian Chamber Orchestra, conducted by Saulus Sondeckis, with Gidon Kremer & Tatjana Grindenko (violins) and Alfred Schnittke (prepared piano).

From the same period of creativity producing Tabula rasa is the brief, sparse piano piece Für Alina. Below is a vlog showing the score as the doubled single notes are struck—one note for each hand (two different notes are struck simultaneously, with the exception of the very first one):

Below is the same piece rendered just a bit slower by a different interpreter:

Satie:

Satie

Some of Erik Satie’s music is recognized as a precursor to minimalism, or minimal music, as in the works of Steve Reich, Philip Glass, Terry Riley, La Monte Young, Gavin Bryars, etc. Thus, Satie may have had indirect influence on Pärt. But whereas Pärt seems to be spiritually grounded throughout his (still-ongoing) career, one may perhaps describe Satie’s life as a bit ‘messy’—not unlike many Biblical characters. Not unlike me.

An eccentric with a wry sense of humor, Satie titled one of his written works, Mémoires d’un amnésique (Memories of an Amnesiac). Additionally, he wrote cryptic player’s instructions between the staffs (staves) such as, “with astonishment”, “on yellowed velvet”, and “like a nightingale with toothache”.3 (I would have really enjoyed getting to know this man!) His Vexations, unpublished during his lifetime—and there is no evidence to suggest it was intended for publication4—is conjectured to have been written in response to the demise of a romantic relationship, though there may be a different impetus for this work.

Reinbert de Leeuw (who just recently passed) provides my favorite interpretations of Satie’s piano music. His tempi are typically slower than other Satie interpreters—this extra space allowing the pieces to ‘breathe’ a bit more—and his touch seems appropriately light or heavy given the particular piece or section of a piece. The vlog just below is timestamped at what is probably my favorite Satie composition, Gymnopédies (1888; there are three variations), performed live (though, somewhat annoyingly, with an inordinate amount of coughing):

And here are de Leeuw’s slower-paced studio renditions of Gymnopédies 1 & 3 from 1977, with suitably stark mostly b&w images:

Also from 1977 is de Leeuw’s Ogives 1—4 (1889), set to interspersings of Monet’s and others’ artwork:

Here are more of de Leeuw’s interpretations (again rec. 1977), including the much lauded—and probably my second favorite—Gnossiennes (1890—1897; six in total):

Act Three of Satie’s ‘Christian Ballet’ Upsud (1892; de Leeuw, rec. date unknown), set to the artwork of Monet, Robert Reid and others:

Sarabande # 1 (1887; de Leeuw, 1977) set to various artists’ works:

All the above reminds me of the former tag line of my favorite record label, ECM Records, as found in one of their album inserts from the ‘70s:

ECM tagline

1 From an interview with Wolfgang Sandner (as translated by Anne Cattaneo), regarding his piece Tabula rasa, published in 1984 as part of the liner notes to ECM Records 1275.

2 Ibid; emphasis added.

3 This according to Ornella Volta’s liner notes (translated by Susannah Howe) for Erik Satie: The Complete Solo Piano Music (483 0236), p 26.

4 Ibid. “The care he took over any piece of writing destined to be seen by anyone else (even the shortest of letters) was always meticulous, bordering on the excessive; during his lifetime, he only ever gave his publishers signed and dated manuscripts, displaying the most elegant calligraphy throughout, his signature acting as his official authorisation for publication” (p 20). Vexations bears no date by the author.

Masking…the Truth?

thespian masks

I’ve shown a number of Tony Heller’s vlogs here on the subject of “climate change”. He has more recently been covering COVID-19. Heller just moved from Colorado Springs to Wyoming, having tired of the increasing Leftism in his former location. In a recent vlog he plays a short clip from a 60 Minutes segment (March 8, 2020) in which Anthony Fauci discusses the use of masks. The video is timestamped at this mark (0:56), and below is my transcription of the brief discussion on this subject:

Fauci: Right now in the United States people should not be walking around with masks.

60 Minutes: You’re sure of it? ‘Cause people are listening really closely to this.

Fauci: No. Right now people should not be wa- — There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better, and it might even block a droplet; but, it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And often there are unintended consequences: people keep fiddling with the mask, and they keep touching their face.

60 Minutes: And can you get some schmutz sorta staying inside [the mask]?

Fauci: Of course, of course; but, when you think masks, you should think of healthcare providers needing them, and people who are ill.

I can affirm that every time I wear the mask—in places where I live in which it’s currently enforced, such as grocery stores—I am constantly “fiddling with the mask”. Yet Fauci contradicts the above in his recent Senate testimony (May 12, 2020):

Well, ya know, the best PPE [personal protective equipment] for the general public, if possible, right now, is to maintain the physical and social distancing. But, as we’ve said, and I think all of us would agree, there are certain circumstances in which it is beyond your control, when you need to do necessary things—like go to the drug store and get your medication, go to the grocery store and get your food—that, in fact, you need some supplementation than just physical distancing. That’s the reason why some time ago, a recommendation was made—I believe it was Dr. Redfield at the CDC who first said that—about getting some sort of a covering. We don’t want to call it a mask—because back then we were concerned we would be taking masks away from the healthcare providers—but, some sort of mask-like facial covering, I think for the time being, should be a very regular part of how we prevent the spread of infection. And, in fact, the more and more as you go outside right here in where I am sitting in Washington, DC, you can see many people out there with masks on, which gives me some degree of comfort that people are taking this very seriously.

Yes, I can recall the pleas not to use up all the surgical masks, especially N95 respirator masks, (in favor of construction masks, e.g.) so that healthcare workers will have enough; but, what about Fauci’s earlier statement in the 60 Minutes segment above? He clearly said that we, the general public, should not be wearing masks of any type, and, further, that it is healthcare providers and the ill that need them. Was he not telling the truth earlier, in order to ensure adequate supply for first responders and healthcare providers? Or is he exaggerating right now, and, if so, for what purpose(s)?

From the World Health Organization (WHO) website we find the following (and more) on the subject of masks:

  • If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19.
  • Wear a mask if you are coughing or sneezing.
  • Masks are effective only when used in combination with frequent hand-cleaning with alcohol-based hand rub or soap and water.
  • If you wear a mask, then you must know how to use it and dispose of it properly.

janus

So, which is it?

I always enjoy listening to Mike Rowe. In the following he uses one of my favorite terms: personal responsibility. This is one of the hallmarks of a free society. And, not surprisingly, he has other nuggets to consider:

…Something is happening right now with regard to public safety and individual responsibility. It’s a collision.

In some areas particularly, if things continue much further down this track, there’ll be no need to strive for the Green New Deal or to impose any of the more stringent “climate change” mandates since the same deleterious end-goals can be achieved this way instead, and at a much quicker pace.

Man, It’s Dark in Here!

When things are very dark, look to the Light. Don’t continue to look in the mirror.

I must remember this…

Giving Thanks

This one is for me. Is this for you, too?

https://www.truthforlife.org || By: Alistair Begg — (Ephesians 5:20). Many view gratitude as an admirable and important quality. The Apostle Paul, however, had much more to say regarding thankfulness, and in his letter to the church in Ephesus, he directed believers to give thanks “always and for everything.” Alistair Begg helps us to understand that for the Christian, thankfulness is rooted in who God is and what He has done. As we trust in God’s fatherly, providential care, we can respond with thanksgiving through all circumstances and for all things.

I’d be looking forward to 2020…

…but my vision’s rather poor. My hindsight isn’t even that good.

Today in the City of David an Eternal Present was Unveiled

Today is the day we celebrate the birth1 of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ,2 Jesus the Christ, the Messiah.3

A bit over two millennia ago, the eternal Word4 became the eternal-temporal Theanthrōpos,5 the God-man.6 God loved the world so much that He provided His one, unique Son7 as a sacrifice for us all, by ‘lifting Him up’ on the cross,8 so that everyone who believes in Him would not  perish, but would gain eternal life,9 adopted as God’s children.10 This entrance into eternality begins the very moment of initial belief11 and remains for those enduring until the end.12

This day we should, in reverential awe, commemorate this glorious, eternally present,13 eternal gift.14 We should remember this selfless, sacrificial gift15 every day—but especially today. Those temporal gifts we give and receive—largely in celebrations overshadowing the true meaning of this season, this day—those temporal gifts we exchange, some by compulsion, will perish. But not this gift. This gift, available to all, has already been given—at such cost!16 The Giver of this gift is Himself the Gift,17 Who seemingly perished forevermore after being crucified.18 Yet He rose again!19 And He lives yet still.20

But this gift is more of an exchange—though a very one-sided one at that. To receive the gift of Jesus’ substitutionary atonement21—in which He has already paid the due penalty for all mankind’s sins past, present, and future22—the recipient must repent,23 turn to Jesus as Lord and Savior,24 and then ‘take up one’s cross daily’.25 This means obeying Jesus’ commandments26 and following His path, to the point of physical death, if necessary.27 However, even if following Christ directly results in temporal death (which is an inevitable eventuality whether following Him or not) one receives the much more valuable eternal life. Yet, even more, as part of this exchange one receives God’s indwelling Spirit28—the Holy Spirit, the paraklētos,29 the Spirit of Truth30—in Whom one possesses both the compass to navigate and the strength to endure His pathway.

Yet Jesus’ requirements are not burdensome.31 When the Christ-follower inevitably sins32—and one easily does so when living by one’s own strength rather than by and in the Spirit33—He is quick to forgive the penitent.34

To those who believe in and follow the Messiah, His Resurrection guarantees this eternal present;35 but, it was the conception36 and subsequent birth37 of the Eternal-temporal38 providing the necessary precursor. As Christians, as Christ-followers, let us remember this day for the momentous and joyous occasion it was and is: the arrival of the Gospel in the Gift wrapped in strips of cloth lying in a manger.39 To those with opened eyes He was unveiled.40 To the blind He remained veiled, but to those blind subsequently receiving sight He was revealed.41

Let us not be side-tracked by the temporality of contemporary glitz and glamour. Let us not take this day for granted. Let us take it to heart. Let us take its inherent message to the outer extremities.42 Let us be God’s instruments through which this Gift is unveiled, blind eyes opened.

The world awaits.43

———————-

1 It is very unlikely, though, that December 25 is the actual day Jesus was born.
2 Luke 2:10-11.
3 John 1:41; 4:25.
4 John 1:1.
5 From Theos = God, anthrōpos = man.
6 John 1:14.
7 John 1:14; 3:16.
8 John 3:14 (cf. Numbers 21:8-9); John 12:32-33.
9 John 3:16-17; Romans 5:8; Ephesians 2:4; 1John 4:9-10.
10 John 1:12.
11 John 5:24-25.
12 Matthew 24:13; Revelation 14:12.
13 John 1:1-2; Colossians 1:16-17; Hebrews 1:2-3.
14 Revelation 13:8; cf. Revelation 17:8. There is ambiguity in the syntax of the Greek in 13:8. Is it that the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world (KJV, NIV, e.g.), or is it that certain names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world (ESV, NASB, e.g.)? One could harmonize this with the words whose names have not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world from 17:8 to resolve this, yet it seems difficult to have a book of life without the Life Giver’s substitutionary atonement (Hebrews 2:17) having been provided first. So maybe both are true? Resolution is not even found in John the Baptizer’s words regarding the “Lamb of God” in John 1:29, for the verb airōn, takes away, is a present active participle, which grammatically indicates durative action, but the temporal reference is unclear. Is it yet-future from the Baptizer’s words, or is John stating that it is already in effect? Tangentially, this verb airō can connote being taken ‘up’ simultaneously with taken away, which can provide a bit of—likely intended—double entendre. In other words, sins are taken up/away as He is taken up/away. This double meaning likely applies—unknowingly by the speakers and in ironical fashion with the benefit of hindsight—in John 19:15 when “the Jews” (hoi Ioudaioi) responded to Pilate’s statement “Here is your king!” with aron aron, staurōson auton, “Take up/away, take up/away; crucify him!” Their command resulted in Him being glorified (John 12:23; 13:31-32; 17:1) and thereby receiving the name above every name (Philippians 2:9-11).
15 Philippians 2:5-8.
16 Hebrews 2:9-18; 4:15. Each and every one of us—at and beyond the age of accountability, at the least—has played his/her part in lifting Him up on that cross.
17 John 11:25; 14:6.
18 Matthew 27:48-50; Mark 15:36-37; Luke 23:36; John 19:28-30.
19 Matthew 28:1-15; Mark 16:1-8[20]; Luke 24:1-49; John 2:19-22; 10:17-18; 20:1-31; 1Corinthians 15:1-4.
20 Revelation 1:18.
21 Hebrews 2:14-18.
22 Romans 3:25-26; Hebrews 9:11-15, 26-28; 10:12, 19-24.
23 Matthew 4:17; Luke 3:8-14; Acts 2:38; 3:19; Romans 2:4.
24 But this cannot be done in one’s own strength; see the words of Jesus in John 6:44: No one is able to come to Me unless the Father, the One Who sent Me, draws him[/her]. See also John 6:65.
25 Matthew 10:38-39; 16:24-26; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23-24; 14:27; John 12:25-26.
26 Matthew 4:17; 22:37-39; Mark 12:30-31; John 8:31-32; 13:34/15:12; 15:10; James 2:8-11; 1John 5:3.
27 See What did Jesus mean when He said, “Take up your cross and follow Me”?
28 John 3:3-8; 14:17; Romans 8:15-17; 1Corinthians 2:12; 3:16; 6:19; 2Corinthians 6:16.
29 John 14:15-16:15; Acts 1:8; 2:1-39; 1John 4:1-6. See also Who is the Holy Spirit?
30 John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13; 1John 4:6; 5:6.
31 Matthew 11:28-30; 1John 5:3.
32 1John 1:8-10.
33 Galatians 5:16-26; 1John 1:6-8.
34 Hebrews 10:22-23; 1John 1:9-2:2.
35 1Corinthians 15:20-23.
36 Luke 1:34-35.
37 Luke 2:1-7.
38 John 1:1, 14.
39 Luke 2:10-12.
40 Luke 2:8-20.
41 John 9:1-41; 2Corinthians 3:14-18.
42 Matthew 28:19-20.
43 John 3:16-21, 31-36; Romans 8:18-27.

A Proper Understanding of the New Testament Text

What the authors of Myths and Mistakes insist on is that it is neither necessary nor even possible to demonstrate that we can recover the exact wording of the New Testament. But what we have is good enough.

The above words by Daniel B. Wallace are the final sentences in his Foreword to the new multi-author volume Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism (Elijah Hixson and Peter J. Gurry, eds. [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2019], pp xix-xx). I received a copy a few days ago, and I may provide a more comprehensive review of it at some point (beyond what I’ve written here), once I’ve read through all its contents.

I think all Christians, most especially those involved in any sort of apologetics, should at least be somewhat acquainted with the topic of New Testament (NT) textual criticism. This is the discipline of attempting to determine the original Greek text (aka the autographs) of the NT, from which we translate to English and other languages. And it’s important that claims regarding the authenticity of the NT text are not exaggerated, for this will only serve to damage the cause of Christian apologetics and Christianity at large. Some who are openly hostile to the Christian faith well-know there are extant Greek NT texts that do not agree with each other, and attempts to quell this fact will only lead to charges of a lack of integrity and/or intelligence among Christians.

The cult-like fervor of King James Version-onlyists (KJVO) is particularly damaging to the Christian faith. These KJVOs stubbornly cling to either a claim of the supremacy of the Greek text underlying the KJV (the so-called Textus Receptus [TR]) and/or the supposed superiority of the King James English contained in the KJV over against all modern English (and other language) versions.1 Adherents appear to be sincere in their desire to believe that God has preserved His words in a particular manner, but in their zeal and shortsightedness they take things too far.

Such an extreme view can be misconstrued as not unlike what we would find in the ‘automatic’ writings of occult works, such as those by Alice A. Bailey, in which she openly states she was the conduit by which an entity identifying himself as Djwal Khul (aka Djwhal Khul, The Tibetan, Master D. K.) channeled his words. Hopefully, no one in Christianity/Christendom believes God provided His words in such a manner. According to the Apostle Paul, “all Scripture is God-breathed (theopneustos: from theos = God; pneustos = breath, breathe)” (2 Tim 3:16);2 moreover, according to Simon Peter, “men, borne by the Holy Spirit, spoke from God” (2 Peter 1:21) and even Paul’s epistles are identified as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). That is, Scripture is understood to be written by men under inspiration from God, as opposed to God dictating His words to these men verbatim. In other words, these men were active participants in the writing of the Christian Holy Scriptures, as opposed to passive recipients, mere conduits. Thus, it is not imperative that we have the exact words of the NT in order to understand what God had conveyed via His messengers.

In Hixson and Gurry’s Introduction is a salient point regarding the reliability of the Greek text we do have:

…Simply put, we believe the textual evidence we have is sufficient to reconstruct, in most cases, what the authors of the New Testament wrote. We cannot do this with equal certainty, of course, and the following chapters will discuss places where doubt remains significant…Nevertheless, we do think that even the most textually corrupted of our manuscripts and editions still convey the central truths of the Christian faith with clarity and power. In every age, God has given his people a text that is more than reliable enough to know the saving work he has accomplished through Jesus Christ.3

To that I can only add, “Amen!”

_____________________________

1 The Achilles’ heel of the KJVO stance is the Johannine Comma (Latin Comma Johanneum)—interpolated verbiage found in the TR of 1 John 5:7-8 and in the corresponding English of the KJV/NKJV. See Daniel B. Wallace’s refutation of this as inspired Scripture here and here.

2 For an in-depth analysis on this one-time occurrence of this word (hapax legomenon), see George W. Knight III’s Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992), pp 444-450.

3 Hixson & Gurry, Myths and Mistakes, p 20. The accompanying footnote to this passage is worth presenting here (in part): In this we agree with influential English reformer William Whitaker, who could readily concede to his Roman Catholic opponents that “the fundamental points of the faith are preserved intact in this Latin edition, if not everywhere, yet in very many places.” This despite his opponents’ claims that the Latin text had final authority, a claim Whitaker vigorously opposed.

Climocentrism: The New Geocentrism

“Trees don’t lie, but [some] climate scientists do.”
-Tony Heller (@ 8:58 of video below)

One of the most embarrassing aspects of the historical record of the Christian Church was the stubborn, persistent belief that the earth was flat and/or our solar system was geocentric. This thinking was based on misinterpretations of a number of Scriptures. But we now know (despite the assertions of a few current flat-earthers) that our solar system is heliocentric—the sun is its center—and the earth rotates on its axis as it revolves around the sun.

But despite mounting evidence, the historical Church clung to its misinterpretations rather than reinterpret those passages to align with contemporary scientific data. Something somewhat similar is occurring in the realm of climatology, though with a twist. The current ideology of “climate change” does not align with historical climatic evidence, so some climatologists simply—and deceptively—change the climate data. This puts a whole new meaning on “climate change”.

There is historical data of a Medieval Warm Period (MWP; ca. 950AD to 1250 AD), which was followed by a Little Ice Age (LIA; ca. 1300AD to 1850AD). Both tree ring data and historical evidence indicate the MWP had average temperatures exceeding those of today—well before the Industrial Age—and the LIA had average temperatures colder than the past 150 years. This casts doubt on the extent of the role of anthropogenic (human-caused) CO2 emissions from the use of fossil fuels in climatic changes. In fact, I’m old enough to recall that there was a growing scientific consensus in the 1970s of an impending ice age, with its causation linked to emissions from fossil fuels. [See this 1978 video from Columbia University and then-leading world climate scientists, sponsored by the US Army and the National Science Foundation, narrated by Leonard Nimoy.] But, of course, now the theory is the converse: anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing ‘global warming’! As Tony Heller deadpanned (going from my memory) in a recent video, “Fossil fuels sure are powerful.”

In Heller’s video below is a screenshot of a statement by Dr. David Deming of the University of Oklahoma College of Earth and Energy regarding the subject “Climate Change and the Media”, entered as part of U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Hearing Statements (12/06/2006):

I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period” [11:16 in video below].

And that’s precisely what Michael Mann did in his reconstruction of climate data. Mann minimized the heat of the MWP, minimized the cold of the LIA, and inflated recent temperatures—in order to falsely portray recent temperatures as exceeding those of the MWP—showing a trending upwards climactically, resulting in his infamous “hockey stick” graph. You can read the background and results of the court case in which Dr. Tim Ball won Mann’s defamation suit relating to it. Ball even received all court-related costs as part of the settlement, because Mann refused to provide to the court the underlying evidence for his “hockey stick” in order to ‘prove’ his case. From the article:

Tim’s [Ball’s] famous words [were] that Michael Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn State,” a comical reference to the fraudulent ‘hockey stick’ graph that knowledgeable scientists knew to be fakery.

In his videos, Tony Heller has been posting actual historical data, such as from newspaper articles from across this spinning spherical earth, in order to compare with current data manipulations from climate ‘scientists’. Below is his most recent vlog. Heller provides much food for thought:

 

 

 

See Tony Heller’s blog for more.

“Climate Change” as Religion

Somewhat recently I shared brunch with a friend, a non-believer. She has known about my Christian faith for some time. We’ve been friends for over 15 years, and I enjoy talking with her on a variety of subjects, some controversial. We can disagree yet not be disagreeable to each other.

Because she had a nominal Catholic upbringing, she was not wholly unfamiliar with the Holy Scriptures. Consequently, I understood that, though she knew some things in the Christian Bible, she did not accept the authority of those Scriptures. Therefore, I prefaced the following statement with this understanding as a premise: I remarked how, with current technology, we have the means to impose what Scripture calls the ‘mark of the beast’ (Revelation 13:16-17) on a worldwide scale. All that is lacking is a unified political power structure to implement and mandate it.

Rather than agree this was true, she refused to engage on the subject—because she didn’t believe in the Scriptures. Though I could not understand how one must necessarily believe in Scripture in toto in order to engage in a general conversation about one aspect of it, we finally just acknowledged (though we both knew this well-beforehand) that she did not share my faith-belief—this hyphenated term one of my choosing.

Subsequent to this, I remarked how most everyone has an opinion on “climate change”, aka anthropogenic [man-made] global warming (AGW), yet most everyone lacks the requisite knowledge base to form an informed opinion on this matter. I noted that there is some info available online that the motivated layperson could read to become more acquainted with the particulars—material that goes beyond the sound bites one hears on corporate media. Without providing any sort of reasoning or affirming whether or not she read any such material, she proclaimed her belief in “climate change.” I told her I agreed that the climate is always changing, but that that is not the same thing as “climate change” (AGW). I asked her to provide some reasoning, some substance behind her stance (and I was quite ready to do same). She said something to the effect, if not verbatim: “I just believe it’s true.”

I slyly smiled and replied, “So that’s your faith-belief?”

She cocked her head a bit, and with a quasi-grin and raised eyebrows gave me one of those looks

A World of Difference

Since presently I seem unable to finish the various articles I’m working on (some of which require quite extensive research before publishing), I’ll post lyrics to a song I like, from one of my favorite albums (154), by one of my favorite bands in the ‘Rock’ genre, namely WIRE.

Blessed State

(B. C. Gilbert)

Closing doors
Opens eyes
To the fatal gift
Of a well-timed lie
Loved in the flesh
And (but) butchered in the mind
Oh what a pearl
What a well-made world

Holy globe
Eternal home
Sacred sphere
So glad I’m here
Oh what a pearl
What a well-made world

1979 EMI Records, Ltd/Carlin Music Corp.

The original version of this song can be heard here: