Ecclesiastes 1:18, Ignorance Is Bliss

For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief.

//Here’s a troubling topic. Is learning contrary to Godliness? Let me give you a couple more verses:

Your wisdom and knowledge mislead you (Isaiah 47:10)

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. (1 Corinthians 3:19)

Maybe it’s time to shut The Dubious Disciple down, and encourage everyone to frolic in ignorance? Or maybe there’s another side to the coin.

The advantage of knowledge is this: that wisdom preserves the life of its possessor. (Ecclesiastes 7:12)

Ah, so knowledge isn’t all bad! Knowledge is good, but one must rightfully divide true knowledge from false knowledge:

Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge (1 Timothy 6:20)

OK, I’ll continue operating The Dubious Disciple until it becomes clear what is true and what is false. Hang in there, this may take awhile.
 

Book review: God Is Red

by Liao Yiwu

★★★★★

Wow! Powerful stuff, here.

Liao is not a Christian, he’s a Chinese rebel. That is, he’s a critic of the Chinese regime, for which he has been imprisoned and his works have been banned. Says Liao, “I will continue to write and document the sufferings of people living at the bottom rung of society, even though the Communist Party is not pleased with my writing. I have the responsibility to help the world understand the true spirit of China, which will outlast the current totalitarian government.”

So, in this book, he takes on the topic of how Christianity flourished under the Communist banner. Martyrdom, underground house churches, religious persecutions … these are the sorts of topics you’ll find in this series of 18 essays. Many deal with the period of Chairman Mao and the Cultural Revolution.

This is not really a political book, nor is it evangelical. It is a reporters-eye view of Christianity where it doesn’t fit in. In learning about his topic, Liao attends a Eucharist celebration, interviews church leaders, visits the sites of persecution, and lets real people tell their stories. Warning: These stories are as disturbing as they are inspiring. Christianity under Red China looks like the first couple centuries under the Roman Empire all over again.

Was it worth it for those who endured? I’ll let you decide after you read the final interview with its entirely different flavor, of a new young 2010 convert to Christianity. A dry surprise awaits you.

Mark 2:26, Mark Names the Wrong High Priest

How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?

I often find myself discussing apparent contradictions in the Bible with others who see no contradiction at all. I have one friend who simply buries his head and says he has “faith” that there are no contradictions, and I have another friend who thoroughly enjoys working through apparent contradictions as if they are puzzles put there to be solved. In truth, I’m against neither approach, believing that religion should be whatever works best for us, yet both approaches do puzzle me. Both seem to begin with the assumption that the Bible, in order to be the Word of God, must be inerrant.

Let’s take today’s verse as an example. Mark’s Gospel says that Abiathar was the high priest during this incident of David eating the showbread in the Temple. Mark is even quoting Jesus with these words. But if you read the account in 1 Samuel, it isn’t Abiathar, it’s Ahimelech:

Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest: and Ahimelech was afraid at the meeting of David, and said unto him, Why art thou alone, and no man with thee? –1 Samuel 21:1

It turns out that with a little wordplay, the contradiction can go away. Mark doesn’t say Ahimelech wasn’t also a high priest; maybe there were two? All Mark says is that this incident occurred during the time Abiathar was high priest. So could there have been two high priests? Technically, no, but if you read Luke 3:2, it gives the opinion that there can be multiple high priests at the same time. Luke was referring to Caiaphas and Ananias, the latter of which was no longer the high priest but once served in that capacity, and Luke called them both high priests. Is this a good enough explanation to solve the Abiathar/Ahimelech conundrum?

Common sense says no. There’s simply no reason at all for Mark to mention Abiathar when the priest that matters in the story is Ahimelech. But, technically, it’s possible that there is no contradiction … there are ways to twist the words around until the Bible remains inerrant.

Which is the proper approach? It boils down to what you must believe, in order to remain a Christian.

1 John 4:16, God is Love

God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.

//Here is a verse dear to all strands of Christianity. Regardless of how you imagine God to be love, Christians agree that He is love.

It turns out that this manner of picturing God is common to many religions. The following quotes are taken from J. C. Tefft's new book, The Christ is Not a Person:

Buddhism: He that loveth not, knoweth not God. For God is love.

Confucius: Love belongs to the highest Heaven and is the quiet home where man should dwell.

Hinduism: The entire universe is in the glory of God ... the God of love.

Jewish: Love is the beginning and the end of the Torah.

Sufism: For God is the God of Love, and Love calls from all these, each one His home.

Revelation 6:1, The White Horseman of Revelation

I looked, and there before me was a white horse! Its rider held a bow, and he was given a crown, and he rode out as a conqueror bent on conquest.

//This is a topic that comes up often in discussion, so I'm repeating most of a blog post from early in 2011. Did John of Patmos have a particular person in mind when he wrote of the white horseman? 

This horseman speaks of a warrior "bent on conquest." Because of the color of the horse, many interpreters imagine the horseman to be Jesus himself. Jesus arrives later in Revelation riding a white steed. But Jesus just doesn't jibe with the atmosphere of the other three horsemen. These horsemen appear like four faces of evil.

In this light, many have wondered if the white horseman intentionally mimics Christ. Could he be the Antichrist? No, that doesn't quite fit either. You may be surprised to learn that Revelation never once mentions an antichrist; only a "Beast of the Sea," which later became associated with the Antichrist, or the Son of Perdition. But the white horseman seems in no way related to the Beast.

Who, then? In light of Revelation's description of the war of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., one name stands out above all others: Vespasian, the Roman general who stormed through Galilee and Judea terrorizing villages as he approached Jerusalem. The Jewish historian Josephus proclaimed Vespasian the Messiah, so John of Patmos seats him on a white horse, mimicking Christ, the true Messiah. Vespasian also imitated Christ as a healer: he healed a blind man with spittle, a lame man, and man with a withered hand. These events would have occurred around the year 69 or 70, about the time Mark penned his Gospel describing how Jesus performed exactly the same miracles.

John tells how this white horseman was given a crown, and how he rode out as a conqueror. David Aune, author of three scholarly tomes on Revelation, suggests that a more accurate interpretation of today's verse may be "the conquering one left to conquer even more." As history buffs already know, Vespasian did just that. Bolstered by Josephus' vision of him as Messiah, Vespasian broke off the attack on Jerusalem (handing it over to his son, Titus) and returned to Rome, to claim by force an even greater place. He was crowned king over the entire Empire.

More about Vespasian’s role in Revelation can be found in my book, http://www.thewayithappened.com

Book review: Becoming, A Spiritual Journey

by Rev. Dr. Pamela Feeser

★★★★

I struggled in deciding on a rating for this one. For myself, I’d give it three stars; I just didn’t relate well. It’s a short little book, and even at that, it seems to lose a bit of focus toward the end and perhaps could have been even shorter. But for others, who have shared more of the pain that Pamela has (both physical and emotional), the book will prove inspirational and comforting, worthy of a five-star ranking. I settled on a compromise of four stars.

Rev. Feeser is opinionated but gentle as she shares the wisdom of a life still Becoming. This is a book for the heart, not so much for the head … a bit different from the sort of book I usually review. Yet it was a pleasant break, sometimes even delightful … and sometimes disturbing. Like Job in the Bible, Pamela endured a lot under God’s watchful eye. Like Job, she simply could never give up on Him. While her understanding and picture of God evolved over time, her love for the One Who Loved Her Into Being grew only stronger … overcoming periods of darkness which found her railing in anger at Him. In her love-hate relationship with the Creator, love won by a landslide, and this shared love is clearly her comfort and strength today.

“Bottom line, God, it’s you and me. I know we can do it.”

Spiritual living is characterized by creative chaos, insists Rev. Feeser. Yet within that chaos, her escape was music and poetic verse. Music appears to have grounded her, given her stability in a world of chaos. Over and over she found God hiding in the notes and the controlled breathing of playing wind instruments (Spirit = breath of God). I mention this because for all the writing I do about God, I know so very little about Him, and I think that for one person at least … God is music. I’m glad Pamela found Him there; we should all be so lucky.

Psalm 139:8-10, Personifying God

If I ascend into heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in hell, behold, You are there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there Your hand shall lead me, And Your right hand shall hold me.  

//Yesterday, I asked if it was acceptable to interpret God walking in the Garden of Eden in a non-literal way. God doesn't really have feet, does he?

Today's verse makes it clear that at least some Bible writers understood the usefulness of personification. Very early on, God was recognized as being omni-present, a part of the reality all around and within us. If we make our bed in hell, God is down there with us, unlimited by space. As Paul explains, we live in God, God lives in us, a reality that is all-encompassing, if a bit panentheistic.

Then we come to the end of today's verses and read that God's hand will lead and hold us. Personification and omnipresence curiously intermingle in a manner that makes it clear the psalmist is speaking figuratively. God's hand is everywhere at once. While a personal God is most effectively expressed through personification, we all recognize this as a literary device. 

Now let's go back to Adam and Even in the garden. If God doesn't really have feet and hands, what does it mean to be made in the image of God?

Genesis 3:8, God Walks in the Garden

And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.

//Many times I've mentioned, always a bit tongue-in-cheek, that I miss the God who used to play hide-and-seek with his humans in his garden. But what do you really picture as you read this verse? Although I've never polled anyone, I suspect every Christian has a little different image in their head when they think of "the sound of God walking."

Martin Luther, for example, thought it ridiculous to imagine that God actually walked around on feet. Something else must be meant. Adam and Eve heard the sound of wind and animals, which before had seemed benign, but now, because of their fallen state, had become something to be afraid of.

Has Luther gone too far in de-personifying God? Are we still taking the Bible seriously when we don't take it literally? More on this topic tomorrow.

Book review: Why Did Jesus, Moses, the Buddha, and Mohammed Cross the Road?

by Brian D. McLaren

★★★★★

We have just enough religion to make us hate but not enough to make us love one another. --Jonathan Swift

What does it mean to be a Christian in a multi-faith world? In a world that keeps shrinking, McLaren draws us back to Christian neighborly principles, encouraging respect and interfaith understanding, but without sacrificing our allegiance to Christ. While it may be true that fostering an us-versus-them atmosphere strengthens the walls and adds purpose to our lives, this does not mean it's the only (or proper) way to remain strong in our faith. McLaren teaches a Christian identity that moves us toward people of other faiths in wholehearted love, not in spite of their non-Christianity identity and not in spite of our own Christianity identity, but because of our identity as a follower of God in the way of Jesus.

Anne Rice once proclaimed, "In the name of Christ ... I quit Christianity and being Christian." Many of us have felt the same frustration as we outgrew our oppositional tendencies and pondered what it really means to be Christian. McLaren calls it "Conflicted Religious Identity Syndrome," this matter of opposing opposition, for it is opposition—standing not only for something but against something—which stabilizes our identity.

But if we jettison our strong/hostile Christian training, will we drift toward its opposite, a weak/benign faith? Yes, if we don't direct our efforts! Weak faith is weak faith! So McLaren calls for strong/benevolent Christians. Contrary to the arguments of aggressive atheists today, the antidote to bad religion is not no religion, but good religion.

As I read back over my review, I see that I’ve used too many big words; I haven’t been very true to the flavor of the book. It actually is quite readable and satisfying, and I loved it.

Exodus 28:30, Urim and Thummim

Also put the Urim and the Thummim in the breastpiece, so they may be over Aaron's heart whenever he enters the presence of the LORD. Thus Aaron will always bear the means of making decisions for the Israelites over his heart before the LORD. 

//Urim and Thummim were objects used as an ancient Israelite means of divination. Ever wonder what these objects looked like? We have no idea. They trace back to at least the 8th century BC, referenced in the book of Hosea. Their use seems to have disappeared prior to Babylonian captivity. The Talmud explains that they were lost when Jerusalem was sacked by Babylon.

1 Samuel chapter 14 finds God giving Saul the silent treatment, and Saul finally decides God must be miffed about a sin committed by Israel. He gathers the leaders of his army and stands them together, while he and his son Jonathan stand apart. Then he inquires of God "by lot" to determine the innocent party. He and Jonathan are selected. He inquires again between he and Jonathan, and finds his son to be guilty. (Jonathan was supposed to be fasting, and snuck a taste of honey).

We assume this “casting of lots” referred again to Urim and Thummim. They appear to have been small objects belonging to the high priest, worn on the breastplate, or perhaps in a pouch or pocket inside the breastplate. Some picture them to have been tiny tablets of bone or wood. Textual scholars believe the name Thummim derives from the root word meaning innocent, while Urim derives from a root meaning cursed. Most likely, the high priest put his hand into the pocket, swirled it around a bit, and randomly chose one of the two, determining the party's innocence or guilt. To determine a sinner from a group of people, the priest could divide the crowd in two, use his U&T to determine the side with the guilty party, and repeat the process until God had singled out one person.

Proverbs 31:6-7, Beer for the Poor

Give beer to those who are perishing, wine to those who are in anguish; let them drink and forget their poverty and remember their misery no more.

//I saw a beggar in Las Vegas a while back holding an open hat and a sign that read, "Why lie? I need a beer." Honesty intrigues me, so I stopped and asked him if he was perishing. He said yep, if he didn't get a beer he'd die, and I said alrighty, you qualify. I'll see what I can do.

As I entered the casino I was met by drunken laughter. Someone at the 3-card poker table had hit it big, and was dancing around with three kings in his hand.

It is not for kings, O Lemuel—not for kings to drink wine, not for rulers to crave beer, lest they drink and forget what the law decrees, and deprive all the oppressed of their rights.  –verses 4-5

... so I stole his beer while he was celebrating and took it out to the beggar where it belongs.

(editor’s note: This doesn’t quite sound like Lee … I suspect this didn’t really happen!)

Book review: John's Gospel, The Way It Happened

As the publication date gets closer, I’m getting more excited about John’s Gospel, my sequel to Revelation. I have a few Advance Reader Copies remaining; if anyone is interested in providing a review, please contact me at lharmon@thewayithappened.com!

This early review is by an internet friend I met on a religious forum: Alan Vandermyden. He just opened a new blog at http://alponders.blogspot.com. Thanks, Alan!

_______________________________________________

Two or three years ago, Deepak Chopra’s Jesus left me with a new sense of Jesus as an historical person—not that Chopra’s book is in any way a definitive biography of Jesus, but in the sense that I began to see Jesus as a person, like each of us, with a story, as he was led to an understanding of his role and purpose in life.

Lee Harmon’s new book—John’s Gospel: The Way It Happened—led me more deeply into this story and into those of other individuals: those of Peter and Paul, and most particularly, of the apostle John. And, perhaps more to the point, it brought an historic perspective to the writing of the four gospels and Revelation. What was once a source of confusion and tension within my own being, as I desperately attempted to “make things fit” with each other and with my own religious understanding, now becomes a weaving together of stories—those of other persons also grappling to understand God and their role in life.

Lee simply tells a story that allows disagreement and differences of understanding between the writers of these books, as well as differences in understanding at different points in their lives—growth. An aged and dying John strives to convey his new understanding of a triumphant Christ of love—far different than the “militarily” victorious Jesus of his Revelation—to Matthew and a young, believing woman of Ephesus. Matthew defends explanations and interpretations he had penned in his gospel—events which “must have occurred” because the scripture prophesied them concerning the Messiah. He had to be born in Bethlehem. He had to be born of a virgin. Matthew does what we persist in doing today, as we attempt to interpret writings as a foretelling of future events, rather than understanding them as bringing relevant understanding to believers in their own times.

Lee accomplishes this without making others—anyone—“wrong.” People are simply struggling to understand events occurring around them, and their own role in life. This historical perspective encourages us to go beyond simply throwing our hands up in disgust, muttering “the Bible is just a bunch of contradictions anyway.” A door is opened, through which we can also enter in to the story and grapple with our own understandings. For me, the Bible is no longer required to be an absolute, an infallible document dictated from heaven; but neither is it just a mess, full of contradictions. It has become a living testament of individuals’ engagement with the being we call “God.”

Though Lee and I have never met, we share a similar heritage, having grown up in families that were active participants in a fellowship officially named (in N. America) Christian Conventions, but which is more commonly referred to by members as “the truth,” “the friends,” or, more simply, “meeting” (a reference to home–based worship/fellowship gatherings). While my (and Lee’s) discontinued association with the fellowship might by implication challenge some beliefs they hold, I see no reason to define them as “wrong” or “bad.” Believe Lee’s book invaluably shows us that we no longer need to so define those who hold a different opinion than we. Each of our opinions is formed within a specific vantage point—a culture, a set of experiences—and we gain much through listening to and accepting other stories. Lee’s writing points this out in respect to the Bible—that set of writings that has so powerfully influenced the world—but the lesson also applies to each of us, today, as we seek to bring meaning to our own experience.

I thank Lee for a powerful, yet easy–to–read book and the extensive research involved.

Genesis 32:32, Keep your man-parts out of harm's way, part III of III

Therefore to this day the Israelites do not eat the tendon attached to the socket of the hip, because the socket of Jacob's hip was touched near the tendon.

//We’re still on the topic of the punishment for a woman who grabs a man’s testicles. The punishment, as translated in most versions of the Bible, is to cut off her hand. Here’s the verse again:

If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity. –Deuteronomy 25:12

But there may be a less severe interpretation. The Hebrew word in this verse (kaph) may not mean “hand” but “palm.” That is, some rounded concave object. The same word is used in today’s verse to refer to the pelvic area—the concave hip socket. Or, as used in the Song of Songs, the woman’s groin area. Thus, “cut off her hand,” becomes “cut off her palm,” or more directly, “shave her groin.”

The punishment, then, may not have been mutilation, but public humiliation. This leads one to believe that Sunday’s post, which discusses the severity of attacking the “life” of a man, may have been off the track completely. If the punishment is public humiliation, it is probably a recompense for the public humiliation of having one’s privates grasped. This actually makes some sense in light of the special circumstances described in the verse: Not merely that a man and woman are tussling, but that the woman interferes in what appears to be a public, fair fight.

Genesis 24:2-3, Keep your man-parts out of harm's way, part II of III

[Abraham] said to the chief servant in his household, the one in charge of all that he had, "Put your hand under my thigh. I want you to swear by the LORD, the God of heaven and the God of earth, that you will not get a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites …”

//Now, I don’t know exactly where that hand “under the thigh” went, but this I do recognize from linguistics: The word testify, like testimony, is rooted in the word testicles … the source of human seed. God’s promise to Abraham was that his seed would be plentiful, and in ancient times, it was believed that the source of life existed entirely in the sperm; a woman’s role in reproduction was no more than to provide a house for the seed to grow.

Dating back to the time of Abraham, then, an oath is sworn “under the thigh,” where life resides.

Yesterday, I discussed the severity of the punishment for any woman who grabs a man’s testicles in a fight. Her hand was cut off. Perhaps we should not be surprised that laws such as this cropped up, protecting the life within another man.

There is, however, another way to look at this punishment of mutilation. We’ll wrap up this discussion tomorrow with an interesting twist.

Deuteronomy 25:11-12, Keep your man-parts out of harm's way, Part I of III

If two Israelite men get into a fight and the wife of one tries to rescue her husband by grabbing the testicles of the other man, you must cut off her hand. Show her no pity.

//This may seem like a strange law, but it's actually a very important deterrent. Deuteronomy 23:1 explains that if a man's testicles are crushed, he is no longer admitted to the assembly of the LORD. Nor, adds Leviticus 21:20, may any man with such a defect approach God with a food offering.

It appears manliness is next to Godliness, and it won't do to have women running around grabbing at stuff. Damaged man-organs rank up there on God's list of abominations with hunchbacks, dwarves, illegitimate births, and missing eyes. In God's world, testes are important even on animals; Leviticus 22:24 cautions against offering an animal with damaged testicles as a sacrifice.

However, it may not pay to become too richly endowed, either. Such men may prove too much of a temptation for Godly women, according to Ezekiel, chapter 23 … in language I dare not repeat here.

More on this tomorrow, on a more serious note, but for today, guys, the best advice might be to keep your jeans on.

Book review: Evolution of the Word

by Marcus Borg

★★★★

This is a big book, 593 pages, but over half of it is a reprint of scripture. After an introduction, Borg goes book-by-book through the New Testament, providing a few pages of overview for each, primarily discussing its historical context, and then presenting the Biblical text. Borg's contributions are a little sparse and offered without much argument, so if you're looking for exhaustive commentary, that's not his purpose.

Also, do not imagine that scholars have some kind of universal agreement about when each of the N.T. books were written! Borg humbly admits there is no consensus, and in places, admits his opinion differs from the majority. In general, Borg dates many of the books just a little later than I do.  For example, he follows the recent trendy dating of Luke/Acts well into the second century, while I remain unconvinced and still date these two books around 85-95. And, of course, we won't agree on Revelation, since in my own book I rely heavily on a historical-critical interpretation to place its date right around the year 80 CE, which differs from almost every New Testament scholar.

But while there's no exact consensus, that's not really the point. The point of Borg's book is to portray how Christianity evolved in its earliest years, as evidenced in the writings we have in our Bible. Indeed, the New Testament itself is an evolutionary outgrowth of the Old Testament. Quite a bit of the discussion centers on Paul, and on the letters written in his name, as this is where the most serious change occurs over the span of the New Testament ... issues like the role of women in the church and of how to regard Christian slaves like Philemon.

Overall, I enjoyed the book but found few surprises, and the reading went fast since I didn't take time to reread all of the scripture.

Focus on the Author: Leonard Timmons

Author of From Adam to Noah: The Numbers Game

A while back, I reviewed Leonard’s book, and gave it a three-star review, considering it a rather fantastic theory. Leonard promised a response to my review, and I’d like to share that with you now.

Hi Lee,

My response to your review follows:

What do the ages of the first humans in the Bible mean? Could people really have lived that long? Leonard Timmons has found an ancient calendar hidden in these numbers, and feels this discovery is key to understanding the Bible.

Actually, my position is that my understanding of the Bible is responsible for the discovery. “One of the things we must accept at this point is that the Bible writers did not want us to find the calendar. They hid it so well that it was almost impossible to find. Why? And why did I find the calendar when so many others failed to, even though it was hiding in plain sight? My answer is that I was willing to put in the time to figure out what the numbers meant, and I was willing to look at the world through the eyes of the people who wrote the Bible. I was trying to look at the Bible through the eyes of its writers long before I solved this puzzle. It was this willingness that allowed me to solve the riddles of Noah’s ark, the Garden of Eden, and Revelation 13. I found the solution to those riddles first, and that allowed me to almost feel the solution to this one.” Page 50.

Timmons’s calendar is constructed by charting, on a timeline, the births and deaths of the men between Adam and Noah, fudging a little here and there to create a few more meaningful points on the timeline,

I went out of my way to not change a single number. The only place where I changed anything was the life of Enoch. I show that if his age was 364 years, we would have a perfect 1x56, 2x56 and 3x56 sequence. The writers do this to introduce us to the 364-day year and to let us know that they know that the year is 365 days long. This idea is shown, but does not affect anything that follows.

So my argument is with the word “fudging” which implies that I knew that a calendar was present in the numbers before I actually discovered it. I can tell you that is not so. When I presented my early results to the monk a the Monastery of the Holy Spirit, I did not yet consider it to be a calendar puzzle. I didn't know what it was. I did not mention that there was a calendar hidden in the ages. The monk volunteered that a calendar was hidden in the numbers. I thought this might be insightful, but certainly premature to say. This was the first time anyone mentioned a calendar. My mind was completely open (an idea that helped me solve many of the riddles of Genesis 1-11, in my opinion). I did find a calendar, but I did not intend to find one as you suggest.

and then discovering that it breaks down into four portions of 364 years plus one 5-year portion. Turn that into days, and you have a 364-day year, plus a 5-day seasonal correction after four years (think of our leap day). 364, for calendar aficionados, is the Jubilees calendar from the Qumran texts, so-liked because it plays nice, dividing neatly into 52 seven-day weeks.

Timmons’s analysis is founded on arithmetic combinations of round numbers (such as 500 or 1000) and of the number seven. Lamech’s age at his death, 777 years, appears to be a clue. For example, 56 is a nice number because it is 7x7+7. 84 is an excellent number because it is 77+7. Seven is recognized as God’s number, a perfect number

I don't say this. Don't know where you get this idea. Could you provide a reference?

, the number of days in the week. Readers of Revelation are quite aware of how important seven, and in particular three sevens (777), are in Biblical thinking.

Timmons is correct that numerology 

Please note that my book is not about numerology, but numerical symbolism. I think you can trace the numerology of the Bible back to this puzzle, but I don't think numerology plays a significant part in this puzzle and no part in my book. I say that I suspect that some number combinations might seem mystical to the authors (354 days of the lunar year being the sum of 123 and 231; 1461-(9x123) = 354) but that's because it's just amazing to me that these numbers work out just right. It may be enough reason to believe that our solar system was designed though we know these numbers have changed over the history of the earth-moon system.

was important to the ancients, often used as a means of Biblical enlightenment. Consider the 666 of Revelation, and the miraculous catch of 153 fish by Jesus’ disciples. Timmons takes a stab at solving both of these riddles, which might be a mistake on his part; while no convincing solutions to the second puzzle have been offered, making the 153 puzzle fair game for speculation, scholars are nearly unanimous and surely correct in solving the 666 puzzle. 

Since you have a book on this, I did not expect that you would accept my interpretation. I did not see any mention in your link of the parallels between Revelation 13 and Daniel 7. Do you have an explanation? Does anyone?

In any case, I would not be surprised at all to discover that there is meaning in the ages of the earliest humans in the Bible. It’s far more likely that the numbers have some sort of meaning to the authors than that people actually lived that long! However, even after reading Timmons’s book, a hidden calendar code seems a bit too conspiratorial for my taste. Timmons may be on the right track with his “meaningful numbers,” but attributing the whole thing to a hidden calendar doesn’t feel right to me.

I didn't really expect that your biblical positions were based primarily on emotion. I read a number of your reviews that were reasoned and logical. So this surprised me.

That is, however, the book’s premise: Not only is there a calendar hiding within the ages of the earliest humans, but it has been purposefully hidden. This is not just numerology, it’s a devised puzzle, and (in my opinion) an inelegant one. The authors were not content just to lay out a calendar; they carefully hid the calendar, purposefully confusing us, swapping the meaningful number 56 here and there with 65 (the reverse of its digits) to confuse us, doubling and halving numbers here and there to bewilder us.

So who imbedded these puzzles? Perhaps collators of the Bible while in Babylonian captivity, or shortly after they returned to Jerusalem? That sounds somewhat believable, but Timmons thinks not; 

Actually, I did not address this, per se. It is my position, and I state this in the book, that these scriptures were edited and re-edited by people who understood them. So the final edit could have been done during the captivity in Babylon, but I don't know this history. Why would I say?

he argues instead that the Bible should be thought of as an ancient educational textbook for the enlightened, a sort of test to divide good puzzle-readers from bad. The Bible is a book of riddles to help the initiate develop his talent for insight. We’re not just talking about the creation stories; the Bible’s authors have encapsulated hidden knowledge in its texts from Genesis to Revelation! An “insight school” that lasted a thousand years! (Timmons actually suggests thousands).

I suspect that you misunderstand me here. There are schools of thought. There are ways of doing things. Jesus had his school and that was an actual school. Elijah and Elisha had their schools that were actual schools. The “insight school” is a school of thought. I'm pretty sure I make this clear in the book. “In his book Who Wrote the Bible?, Richard Friedman makes clear that ancient Israel had two schools of thought about what our relationship with God should be. The first school believed in angels, quick wit, and direct intervention by God; the second believed in laws, plodding, and obedience to God.” Page 217. It is trivially easy for a school of thought to last a thousand years. Any “-ism” can last for a very long time. Judaism, for instance. Christianity, for instance. Platonism, for instance.

Timmons rejects the Documentary Hypothesis (which proposes that the Torah was written by at least four distinct authors, none of them Moses). I cannot help but think he commits another error by pitting his puzzle theory against the Documentary Hypothesis; it seems far more reasonable to me that the Documentary Hypothesis disproves the ancient textbook idea rather than vice-versa.

Yet the Documentary Hypothesis has been rejected throughout Europe. See “Taking Issue with the Documentary Hypothesis” at the following link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ADocumentary_hypothesis This is what I heard from my contacts in Europe as well. My contacts in Australia still hold to the hypothesis.

Anyway, the hidden calendar is not really the important thing. It’s just a discovery that should prompt us to read the Bible differently; 

Again, reading the Bible differently is responsible for the discovery of the calendar. I suspect that people come to this conclusion because I present the calendar first. But it was not first. Reading the Bible differently was first.

to reveal to us the surprising intellect and understanding of its authors. 

Again, the reason I found the calendar was that I read the Bible as if its authors were very intellectual and had great understanding. I did not and do not look down on them because they lived thousands of years ago. I find this to be common among people who “follow” the Bible. 

Free now to explore a deeper meaning in the scriptures than a literal reading, Timmons next launches into his interpretation of the Bible’s themes; how the ancients thought of demons, angels, soul, spirit, faith, even God … and it’s nothing like what we thought they meant. This insight helps Timmons decode stories like the Flood and the Garden of Eden, and he provides two creative and fascinating interpretations. Even Jesus’ parables and Revelation’s mysteries are revealed.

Again, I figured out what the Bible writers thought of demons, angels, etc. before I discovered the calendar. I decoded the flood story in the late 90's (I provide a link to a newsgroup post). I discovered the calendar in the early 2000's.

I found the book to be an interesting fringe theory, and fun with numbers (right up my alley), but not something I found convincing. However, my feeling is that there is surely a 4- or even 5-star book idea here, that Timmons’s interpretations are ingenious, but that he overreaches by claiming them to be the correct interpretation … as if the Bible writers actually meant their stories to be read this way.

Would I claim that my interpretations were incorrect? I am taking a position. I am advocating that the reader see the world from my position. Someone has to have the correct interpretation. It is my position that my view of the Bible leads to a verifiable result. So that should give it and my interpretations more weight than those that just make the reader feel good about themselves.

My book is very different, so I don't really expect traditionalists to understand it. I read the Bible without emotion. With a complete open mind. With the idea that when the Bible writers describe the Tigris and Euphrates rivers and say that they flow opposite the direction that the real rivers flow, that they were not stupid. They understood geography. When I see people put the confluence of the rivers far upstream, they cannot think much of the authors or they think the text is massively corrupt (which is the same thing). Suppose we grant that these people might have been as smart as us. Or even smarter. Do they have enough information at hand to understand the world as deeply as our greatest philosophers? I think they did. That's how I found the calendar and the meaning of the stories—I respected the authors.

Matthew 4:1-2, Jesus Fasts

Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.

//According to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, immediately after his baptism by John, Jesus heads off into the desert to be “tempted by the devil” for forty days. This contradicts the Gospel of John, which reports that Jesus came back to the Jordan River the very next day, but let's not get bogged down in details.

What I find interesting is not whether Jesus fasted for one day or forty, but why he decided to fast at all. Apparently, according to Matthew, Satan wouldn't or couldn't show up until Jesus is delirious in his hunger. But once Jesus is properly prepared, Satan makes his entrance and tempts Jesus, first suggesting Jesus change some rocks into food. Then Satan tempts Jesus with fame and kingship over the earth, which Jesus refuses (so much for the book of Revelation). 

Luke flavors his story a little differently, suggesting that Satan tempted Jesus throughout the forty days. Only Matthew and Luke tell how Jesus was tempted (Mark simply reports without elaboration that Jesus was tempted by Satan), but somehow, their stories of the temptation are similar.

Did this desert experience really happen? Was it a fast-induced hallucination? Or a series of temptations Jesus struggled with throughout his ministry, such as the time the people wanted to raise him as their king, and which Gospel writers creatively turned into one temptation experience?

I'd be curious to hear opinions.

Numbers 16:32-33, The First Mention of the Underworld in the Bible

And the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, with their households and all the people who belonged to Korah and all their goods. So they and all that belonged to them went down alive into Sheol, and the earth closed over them, and they perished from the midst of the assembly. 

//Korah was a troublemaking rich Israelite who insisted everybody was equal. Especially him. He had as much right to be a priest as Aaron, God's appointed. So Moses said okay, let Korah and his 250 followers bring their fire pans before God, with the incense burning. We shall see whether God accepts them.

God doesn't. He opens up the mouth of the earth and swallows all 250 of them into Sheol, the Jewish underworld. Sheol was a place under the earth of shadowy subsistence where souls descended after they died. In early Jewish thought, the soul gradually wasted away there, but in the second century B.C., some Jews began to imagine the soul would return to the body in a physical resurrection (see the book of Daniel, written about 165 B.C.)

Koran, however, doesn't die! He and his followers fall alive into the realm of the dead. The first mention of Sheol, and the first living dead. It makes me wonder … with our Gothic fascination with the underworld, why have there been no movies written about this event?

Book review: My Universe, A Transcendent Reality

by Alex Vary

★★★★

The subtitle of this book is an “Atheist-Scientist’s Guide to God.” It’s broken down into five parts of two or three dozen short essays each, which were compiled and organized by Vary over a period of six years. Each essay leads fluidly into the next, however, so it’s not as if Vary is publishing an anthology; this is, rather, a defense of his particular view of reality … a reality that transcends the material cosmos into the transcendental universe. Vary takes what he calls a “rational approach” to God, along the lines of thinkers Bernard Haisch, Paul Davies and Jacob Needleman, and much of his book details his perception of body-soul-spirit. The mind of “God” (in which we, with our limited minds, share) resides outside the physical cosmos.

Vary’s writing is intelligent and he’s extremely well-read. He is a retired research scientist with NASA, and I have to be honest, here: He’s way over my head at times. Part three, the central portion of the book, is simply incomprehensible. I can speak somewhat knowledgeably about quantum entanglement, black holes, and particle-wave duality, but if asked whether Vary adequately argues his hypotheses (among them, an explanation of how the material somethingness of the cosmos arises from nothingness) or whether he has truly formulated a convincing proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem, I admit total bafflement.

A key part of Vary’s worldview includes what he refers to as Astrals, non-corporal beings that reside in the mesostratum. Spiritual manifestations with human-like traits, personalities, occupations and ambitions, who tinker in material affairs, fiddling with DNA, fine-tuning our evolution. How else do we explain how species seem to appear suddenly, fully formed and equipped with all sorts of specialized organs, then remain stable for millions of years? Yeah, I know, this stuff is out there, but once we dig below Vary’s tongue-in-cheek caricatures of our designers, he turns out to be quite serious. So, clearly, his is a controversial take.

And also a bit disturbing, since it implies that we humans, like the dinosaurs, are most likely still imperfect beings who will soon be discarded as non-working models while the DNA tinkering continues. 

Honestly? I had a lot of fun reading this one. I highly recommend it for pleasurable reading and fascinating learning. But I don’t think I have room for Vary’s “religion.”

Matthew 19:3, When Is Divorce Allowed?

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason" 

//One of the "eight great debates" in first-century Judaism was this matter of divorce. Under what circumstances was divorce to be permitted? Respected rabbi's Shammai and Hillel espoused different teachings, and when the Pharisees came to "test" Jesus, they really were merely trying to nail down which side of the debate Jesus would take.

In this example, Jesus sides with Shammai ... interesting, because he usually sides with Hillel. But this time, Hillel, quite lax on the matter, argued that divorce was permitted "even if she [merely] burns his soup." Like the Pharisees ask, "Any and every reason." Shammai's stance was more strict, that divorce should only occur over a matter of immorality.

Thus we reach Jesus' teaching in Matthew, who chooses Shammai in the debate: 

I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery. --Matthew 19:9

It's curious that only Matthew includes this exception about infidelity. It doesn't exist in Mark, the text that Matthew copies from. Mark simply says divorce is a no-no. But Matthew, apparently more familiar with the two sides of the big debate than Mark, adds the clause that a person is permitted to divorce under the circumstance of infidelity.

Ruth 1:16, Your God will be my God

Your people shall be my people and your God my God.

//The book of Ruth is such a sweet little story, and this speech by Ruth is such an inspiring example of love. As Naomi heads back from Moab to the land of Israel, she instructs her daughter-in-law Ruth to turn back, go back to Moab. Ruth says, “Entreat me not to leave you, Or to turn back from following after you; For wherever you go, I will go; And wherever you lodge, I will lodge.” But Ruth doesn’t stop there. She continues, “Your people shall be my people, And your God, my God.”

But if other scripture is to be believed, Ruth could not have said these words, except in ignorance. Naomi could never have accepted them. No such thing should have been possible. The book of Deuteronomy is clear on the subject:

"An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter the assembly of the LORD; even to the tenth generation none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the LORD forever, because they did not meet you with bread and water on the road when you came out of Egypt” –Deuteronomy 23:3-4

Supposing this story of Ruth and Naomi were true, can you begin to imagine the heartache Naomi would feel as she led Ruth back to a land that she believed could never accept her? Supposing this story were true, then what changed when they arrived back in Israel: the Law or the Lord?

Book review: Revelation: The Way it Happened

by Lee Harmon

★★★★

A writer is forever learning. In this review by Goodreads reviewer “Phil,” I learned never to park things atop the ark (too informal, I assume), and to be more sensitive about Jewish facial features. I made both modifications in my "corrected copy." (Seriously, I did! It's my job to learn and avoid what offends people!)

From Phil:

It seems it has taken me a long time to read this book, but there were two factors - one, I enjoyed it so, that it gave me food for thought, and, two, a minister friend (not on Goodreads) was so captivated by my description of it, I had to lend it to him.

Pity the poor librarian who has to classify the book! It is neither exegetical commentary on the Book of Revelation nor an historical novel! (Official rules state, however, it must be classed as fiction.)

I might have given the book the full five stars, except for some "infelicities."

For example, the Cherubim can be said to have been placed on the Ark of the Covenant, but "parked"?

And the description of Samuel's deceased wife's nose as "dainty ... so contradictory to her Jewish heritage ..." Seriously ??

Otherwise, I enjoyed this largely Preterist commentary on Revelation.

Acts 18:18, The Haircut That Cost Paul His Life

Paul stayed on in Corinth for some time. Then he left the brothers and sailed for Syria, accompanied by Priscilla and Aquila. Before he sailed, he had his hair cut off at Cenchrea because of a vow he had taken.

//Ever wonder about this vow made by Paul? I wish Paul himself had written about this vow, but he didn’t, so we’re left to speculate. So speculate I shall.

“'Priests must not shave their heads or shave off the edges of their beards or cut their bodies,” says Leviticus 21:5. But non-priests were free to cut their hair, and in fact, it became a way of mourning or sealing a vow to God in times of distress. Like wearing sackcloth and ashes. To underscore the vow, Israelites cut the hair off their head and burnt it at the altar of the Temple in Jerusalem.

Paul appears to have made a vow in Corinth and sealed it with a haircut at Cenchrea. He was about to embark on a lengthy journey which would eventually land him in Jerusalem. His purpose was to deliver a collection of money needed by the Jews there, but his friends begged him not to go, knowing the danger. But Paul had made a vow and wouldn’t listen. He seemed determined to go personally to the Temple in Jerusalem, perhaps carrying his hair to be burned.

You know the rest: He was captured, taken to Rome, and probably was never again a free man. There, in Rome, he was beheaded.

Genesis 20:17, The First Prayer Answered For Another

Then Abraham prayed to God, and God healed Abimelech, his wife and his slave girls so they could have children again.

 //The story goes that when Abraham lived in Gerar, he deceived Abimelech, king of Gerar, telling him that his wife Sarah was really his sister. So Abimelech, knowing no better, "sent for Sarah and took her." (Not really; two verses later, scripture explains that he didn't have opportunity to get near her, but it was apparently a close call. God intervened.)

Nevertheless, God is angry, and says Abimelech had better make things right with Abraham or he will die. God also "closed up every womb in Abimelech's household" so that Abimelech couldn't conceive an heir.

Abimelech pleads with Abraham, and Abraham is moved to pray to God, not only to spare Abimelech's life but to restore his ability to conceive. God hears the prayer, and opens the wombs of Abimelech's wife and slave girls.

Legend tells us that this was the first time in human history that God fulfilled the prayer of one human being for another. Not the first time someone prayed for another; Abraham had previously begged God to spare Sodom, though God refused. But Abraham's incessant pleading for others wore God down. Indeed, as the legend goes, the very reason God conversed with Abraham at all was because of Abraham's concern for others: when Abraham begged for leniency toward Sodom, God said, "You take delight in defending My creatures, and you would not call them guilty. That is why I have spoken to no one but you during the ten generations since Noah."

Book review: The Jewish Gospels

by Daniel Boyarin

★★★★★

Just when you think you’ve got it all figured out, along comes Daniel Boyarin, a professor of Talmudic Culture and Rhetoric at the University of California.

You think Christianity’s unique contribution to Judaism was the introduction of a god-man? Wrong. Could it be the idea of a suffering savior? Wrong again. Maybe that Jesus rejected Jewish dietary laws and Sabbath restrictions, freeing us from the Law? Hardly; Boyarin paints a very Jewish Jesus in his reading of the Gospels, certainly a Jesus who keeps kosher.

Christianity’s one claim to fame may be the insistence that the Messiah had already arrived, but that’s about the extent of its uniqueness. Otherwise, Christianity is a very Jewish offshoot of a Jewish religion. Boyarin draws from texts like the Book of Daniel and 1^st Enoch to explain the title Son of Man (which, it turns out, is a much more exalted title than Son of God) and in turn to expose the expectation of many first-century Jews of just such a divine savior.

This is a fascinating, controversial book presenting a very different look at Jesus as one who defended Torah from wayward Judaic sects (the Pharisees), rather than vice versa. I don’t think the arguments are fully developed yet, but certainly Boyarin introduces “reasonable doubt” against traditional scholarship. Let the arguing begin.

1 Timothy 2:15, Saved Through Childbearing

But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

//This particular section of scripture (attributed to Paul, though probably written after his time) draws little appreciation from most women. First, "Paul" insists that a woman may not speak in church, but should "learn in quietness and full submission." Then he says that women will be saved by having children.

Really?

Actually, there is another interpretation of this verse. In no translation does it actually say saved by having kids. It says through, or in. And what, exactly, does "saved" mean? We tend to read the New Testament through the lens of today's afterlife-oriented Christianity, but that may be inappropriate.

Consider, for example, that Timothy (the letter's addressee) lived in Ephesus. Just down the street from him would be the world-famous temple dedicated to Artemis, the goddess who protected women from harm as they gave birth to children. I've heard it said that one out of two women in Ephesus died during childbirth; if that's true, then Artemis wasn't doing a very good job.

Artemis’s failure should come as no surprise. Recall God's promise to Eve because of her sin in the Garden of Eden: To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. But in the new age, the paradise of Eden will be restored, and this age, according to the first Christians, lived in its birth pangs. It was supposed to be just around the corner.

Thus in today’s verse "Paul" exposes Artemis as a fraud while at the same time reminding believers of the promise of safe child bearing through faithfulness to the true God.