Chapter 3 thoughts

Wow, it's sunday already.
Chapter 3 (is the bible reliable) was pretty solid :) It's really cool to learn about how ancient manuscripts work and how rare they are. At the same time, just how many consistent copies of scripture are found. There's only a couple of copies of Plato and other old stuff found, but there's thousands of Jesus stuff and so many of them can be dated within 50 years of the events they describe whereas copies of the philosophers and stuff are found 100s of years after their life time.

I guess more of the conversation should come not from whether the bible is reliable, but more on the truth of the bible. But personally i feel like if an event can spark the largest distribution of literature that continues even today (bible is constantly the best seller) that there must be something to it.

A lot of times I worry about whether the bible was changed. In high school, it was the first time this was brought to my attention when my friend told me about how there were books written that were excluded from the bible canon. This scared me so much. It made me wonder though, would God let His word be distorted? As much interpretation as there is even today, what drove the church leaders of passed to exclude or include certain books from the bible? It could be the difference between Mormon and Protestant or Catholic and Baptist. Could you make the same argument for Christianity and Judaism? That's why I feel that bible reading alone is not the be-all, end-all in spiritual discipline. We should understand scripture, where it comes from, how it got there, but we still must recognize God working in our lives today. That's the difference between Homer's Iliad and Matthew's gospel. Deep down I believe that God won't let His word be completely distorted again after Jesus, because Jesus was sent to fulfill the law (the same law that already got distorted).

Happy WIVES day! sorry i didnt go

We had worship large group this week, which was reall cool. here's a music vdeo that some folks made, which i thought was pretty cool


had the auction too, which i hear went well

take care guys!!

Last Week

so much stuff happened last week :)
i got to see a harbor seal and dolphin necropsy in the NOAA lab next door.

This dolphin is missing a tail because it got caught in a fishing net. The fishermen.. unwilling to cut their net to let it loose.. instead cut off its tail to throw it back. I was the only undergrad at the necropsy, and the people let me cut off the dolphin's head, and take out one eye to do aging tests. I'm not gonna lie.. I was pretty excited to do that. It was weird though because it didn't register to me that it was a dolphin when I was cutting. It just seemed like a thing of meat which is sad because i <3 dolphins. I think the first time i saw a necropsy (of a sea turtle) there was so much blood, and organs were everywhere that it was pretty disgusting. this time, though, i think i was more used to it and desensitized and could really appreciate how everything in the body worked together and stuff. It was really interesting. It was also really cool how CSI-ish everything was, and what details they paid attention to. For example, they found about 40 menhaden (a small fish) in the seal's stomach and concluded that the fishermen probably discarded these as bycatch (cause they're too small) and the seal was probably just around to get the free meal because it'd be unlikely a seal could chase that many fish down in one meal.

In trying to decided on classes for next year, i met with a professor here to talk about possible marine science careers. he basically told me about 2 paths. one is a 2 year MEM program (marine environmental management) where you become a manager or something for fisheries and stuff like that. the other is a research track where you basically specialize in one area of marine science with a particular animal or group of animals. for that you need a masters/PhD so i still don't know what i'm gonna do with my life. It really hit me though about how I'm actually gonna have a career... I think i've been living in denial this whole time. I always assumed that if i had a family i'd be happy and never bothered to think that i'd be settling down with a career too. it scared me especially cause at this rate, i'll most definitely have a job before a family.. i need to get the order of events of my life together.

in other news, i decided to join the outreach team for IV next year and be a GiG leader for people i don't necessarily know. In my application i wrote that as a concern because i feel like i share the gospel best when i have already-established friendships with the people. When louisa called me to ask if i would be willing to do the GiG stuff, i told her i needed more time to think. I opened up the bible and chose a random book as if to ask God for a sign. Well, i started reading the first chapter of Romans. And you could say i got my "answer" at verses 14-17: "¹⁴I am obligated both to Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish. ¹⁵That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are at Rome. ¹⁶I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. ¹⁷For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."

Basically it came to my attention that I need to be preaching the Gospel to everyone, not just my friends. It put me to shame how eager paul was to preach the Gospel, and how scared I was. Ok so then I fell asleep.. but when I woke up I called back to say yes. Now i'm heavily anticipating how next year will go. That also solved my unsure-ness of which track to do in rockbridge (good news track).

I've been enjoying a 4-day weekend so far though so that's be AWESOME. i went fishing again (still didn't catch anything) i think the adult fish are still in warmer waters. The water is now bearable to stand in though. I can't wait until they're swimming temperatures. On monday they're letting us start to use the kayaks, so that's super exciting. And even more exciting, i'll be headed to trinidad on the 19th to work with leatherback sea turtles and other turtles. I'll be leaving from RDU which means i'll prob be around chapel hill/duke that weekend seeing that I wont have class on friday for that block either. This block (and all of its reading) end next wednesday, i'm super excited!

Chapter 2 "Can we know anything about history"

This chapter talks about uncertainty in history, how history is affected by the biases of authors, propaganda, and sometimes written with purposes in mind. It's pretty much impossible to get an objective historical account of something. The example she gave was that there is even a small portion of people today who believe that the holocaust didn't happen.. sketpicism formed even a couple of decades after the fact (very recent historically speaking).

This reminds me of a killer whale documentary i saw :D. it was set in Eden (i think in australia) where "legend" has is that the humans there used to hunt along side of killer whales, cooperating to bring down large whales. The killer whales would eat the tongue, and the people would take the rest of the whale. The story goes that the killer whales would swim to town to signal fishers to follow it while other killer whales surrounded and led a whale towards a bay to be trapped. However, one day a killer whale got beached, and a person decided to kill it for meat, and ever since, the killer whales never went back. There are still about 4 people on earth who recount these days with their personal experiences. That's where the controversy of history came in.. There were consistent first hand accounts, but enough time had passed that people questioned its validity.

I agree with the author that it's really hard to learn which historical accounts to trust. But I think that's where faith plays an important role. One thing that struck me was how the author talked about a time she talked with a non-christian about why she was christian. She basically mentioned 2 things: that christianity was "intellectually robust", and "existentially satisfying". meaning that there was enough historical basis to be captivated, and enough personal experience to solidify the faith. I find the same is true in many testimonies. We learn the Word of God, and we experience Jesus' love in our lives. For me, the switch flipped when my little brother was born when I was 9. "unconditional love" that the bible taught made sense. Scripture made sense cause God is love. But at the same time, the fact that sermons or passages or conversations "challenge me" really points to a truth to me. "Intellectually robust" It's good to question history, and especially important to think about the bible in its place in history. How/when was the bible written/formed? What was going on when Jesus was on earth? But just as important, what's going on today in your own life that makes sense in this spiritual context?

I find that we believe in the objectiveness in history if it seems realistic to us modernly. If we still hunted with killer whales, we'd believe what happened in australia. If we believe in Jesus today, of course the bible makes sense. If not, you could listen to however many personal accounts you want, but the history won't speak unless you seek.

Edith and Michelle

Just to let you know, I've invited both to be authors, so hopefully they'll be posting. Edith's already keeping a blog you may want to check out at http://gloradin.blogspot.com

see y'all :)

first chapter

This chapter really reminds me of the very first class i walked into at duke: intro to philosophy (freshman seminar) in the sense that it tries to use logic to argue everything. The rules of the game are to making sound/cogent arguments, and the arguments are always directed against skeptics.

I guess the author took a really general skeptic view of language and truth to pick a fight with. From what I gathered, the argument connecting language and God is that the fact that we can derive meaning from language suggests that there is something universal to be described, and that language actually carries meaning about the world. And then a step further, accepting that there is such thing as meaning in the world means there are certain truths, but these truths have to be defined (and most people think we're not capable of defining these truths), and that's where God comes in. But skeptics argue that there is no meaning, no absolute truth in the universe. Language has no higher meaning, no authoritative power. *skip a few steps* therefore, there is no God and the Bible is just a book with no meaning or truth.

The author's argument against this was pretty much just exposing a paradox (which i found really unsatisfying). She basically said, 'well if words have no meaning, then the skeptics' words have no meaning either and they contradict themselves' you cant say there's no absolute truth because believing that there is no absolute truth is in itself, a truth you believe in. *sigh* i really dont like logical arguments cause they're so pointless to me, it's just playing a game. agreeing with others and their methodology just to say "i beat you at your own game.. but dont worry i don't play that game anyway.. i rely on faith.. which is illogical in itself." ???

it reminds me of the "why is there suffering" lecture last year after proxe stations that left a lot of people (along with myself) unsatisfied.. it attempted to produce a cogent argument for an all-powerful, loving God to allow suffering in the world. It's like trying to use math to solve a reading comprehension problem. I believe that you can't use philosophy and logic to explain God.

as for the scenario on pg 24, i agree with you sabrina, language has changed a lot over time, especially with the bible. there are so many different translations, oral traditions, and even canons. not to mention the cultural barriers. i think the author was just trying to make another argument against skeptics who believe in essense that we think therefore we are. That we interpret whatever we read in our own context (culture, social, time, etc influences). any meaning we give to something we read is just a reflection of our background. but the author is saying that it would be impossible for us to learn something new if we came about learning everything based on what already defines us. But i would say that even in our removed cultural contexts we can still learn something new. I think the author got too wrapped up in making arguments against skeptics, that there is little conclusive, "how should we read the bible" application

i think it was good though how the author at the end says we should examine parts of the bible like who the authors actually were, why the wrote it, etc. i think that understanding historical background is extremely important. even though the author gives a tough example of how 2 people read the same thing once, they both reached completely different conclusions, cautiously.. i'm ok with that. i took a new testament class (historical basis) last year. it seemed like the non-christians in the class would take what they learned and strengthen arguments against God, while the Christians took what they learned and it reaffirmed their faith. I think that more important than where/who you grew up with, your background, your friends, family, etc your heart is still on its own. You can decide to give it to God or keep it for yourself. If your heart is set on something whether it be that God isn't real or that He is, anything you read or experience will probably be fit into that thought until you make a decision to accept God or not. Even if there is an absolute truth, if you're so bent on believing otherwise, you'll never find it. So to answer the question that is the title of the chapter, "Isn't it all a matter of interpretation?", yes, it's a matter of interpretation until you become open to thinking otherwise. When you let God in, when you seek with enough curiosity to look deeper into the bible, the meaning hidden between the lines, experience an answered prayer, then you find that you're not just interpreting a religious manuscript, you're interpretting God's will. Yes i understand this is very circular thinking, logically speaking, but i'm not gonna try to make a cogent argument for what i believe. I believe what I believe because I believe I've seen how God has worked in my life :)

P.S it's absolutely gorgeous outside!!!! dolphins! sand! waves! wind! warm! salty-air! VAST ocean! tell me there's no meaning in life... :D

Here's the announcements from this week, if you guys are interested (3 videos). It was spring break sharing week, so no recording.


Take care,
ben