Pondering Genesis 28:11-12 (Ladder, Stairs, Ramp)

Looking at Genesis 28:11-12 again, it's funny how new details become salient each time and things become clearer with one more read. The word normally translated "ladder" (sullam) in that account could be rendered "stairway" or ramp. Moreover, the ladder/stairway could have been made from stone steps.

Another important detail is that Jehovah (YHWH) possibly was at the top of the ladder on which angels ascended and descended (Genesis 28:13) or others understand the text to say YHWH was beside Jacob. The Hebrew allows for different renderings, but I still have my reservations about the idea that Jacob beheld a heavenly sanctuary at the top of the ladder. Of course, he was having a dream/vision, which is another thing to keep in mind.

Revelation 3:12 (Latin Vulgate)

The resurrected Lord Christ Jesus utters these words to the first-century Christian congregation in Philadelphia (western Asia Minor):

"qui vicerit faciam illum columnam in templo Dei mei et foras non egredietur amplius et scribam super eum nomen Dei mei et nomen civitatis Dei mei novae Hierusalem quae descendit de caelo a Deo meo et nomen meum novum" (Revelation 3:12 Biblia Vulgata)

Freed on Colossians 1:15

 

Chomskyan Top-Down and Bottom-Up Processing (Deep Structure and Surface Structure)

In any conversation or discourse,  there normally is a lingual sender and a receiver. How does the lingual sender convey ideas/messages to the receiver? How does the receiver decode the message initiated by the sender and in turn send reciprocating messages? Chomsky's answer appears to be or have been top-down and bottom-up processing. When producing speech, the sender engages in top-down processing: he or she gradually moves from abstract and regulative meaning (deep structure) to lingual structures like phrases, sentences, morphemes (words, prefixes, and suffixes) and phonemes (minimal units of sound). In essence, the speaker glides from the abstract underlying representation of a sentence to the surface structure when producing speech. Conversely, when decoding the message of the sender, the receiver decodes the phonemes and deciphers the morphemes of the sender (and so forth). Only after decoding the basic sounds and words of a sentence can the receiver unravel sentential meaning. While this process sounds complex, it remarkably happens in a matter of seconds (Morris 236-240). What is responsible for this remarkable procedure? What are the mechanics of this process?

Ever since the nineteenth century, psychologists have been aware of two significant cerebral areas that could potentially explain Chomskyan transformations via top-down and bottom-up processing. These two areas respectively are Broca's and Wernicke's areas. Wernicke's area is located in "the left posterior superior temporal gyrus." and seems to be responsible for understanding speech. Broca's area is located in the left frontal lobe of the cerebral cortex and could be vital for the utilization of language. Some describe the location of Broca's area as "a cortical region in the posterior inferior frontal gyrus" and note that the area "is still considered to be critically involved in speech production." See  https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1414491112?doi=10.1073%2Fpnas.1414491112 and https://carta.anthropogeny.org/moca/topics/brocas-and-wernickes-areas#:~:text=Broca%27s%20and%20Wernicke%27s%20areas%20are%20cortical%20areas%20specialized%20for%20production,left%20posterior%20superior%20temporal%20gyrus.

Some psycholinguists have likewise posited that entities labeled images, concepts, and prototypes are the building blocks of thought. For instance, seeing a cat generates the image of a cat; nevertheless, the mind does not merely catalog the cat as a single instance or token, but the human intellect conceptually places specific animals or events into ontological categories. Eleanor Rosch states that we construct mental prototypes, which help us to distinguish one animal from another. For example, we know the difference prototypically between a mouse and rat. But although these prototypes evidently originate from our somatic experiences and may be derived by dint of induction, they still remain ever "fuzzy."

The processes hitherto described seem complex, yet George Yule insists that the description given here is a "massively oversimplified version of what may actually take place" (164). Language largely remains mysterious to linguists and there is not a "logical, internally consistent theory that neatly ties up brain, language, and mind" (Restak 230231).

See https://corpling.hypotheses.org/252

Is Greed, Avarice or Covetousness Good?

"But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people" (Ephesians 5:3 NIV).

Contra Gordon Gekko, greed is not good.

The Reliability of Jehovah God's Spoken Word (Gary V. Smith)-Isaiah 40:8

The Hebrew text does not mention the “glory” (NIV follows the Old Greek translation here)52 of the grass or humanity that will wither and fade. Humanity's “faithfulness, dependability” 53 fades and is like the dependability of a bloom on a flower. The people who oppose God's plans will fall just like the flower petals of a rose when God comes in all his glory. In contrast to man's fading lack of dependability is the sure and totally dependable word of the Lord (40:5,8). One should not trust other people or put any hope in them, for God's promises are man's only solid and a sure source of strength (55:10-11). The contrast is clear; flowers “fall,” but God's word “will stand.” What he promises will happen.

Smith, Gary V. The New American Commentary - Isaiah 40-66: 15B (Kindle Locations 2548-2554). B&H Publishing. Kindle Edition. 

[Applies to the written Word too-EF]

Hebrews 6:19

Greek (WH): ἣν ὡς ἄγκυραν ἔχομεν τῆς ψυχῆς, ἀσφαλῆ τε καὶ βεβαίαν καὶ εἰσερχομένην εἰς τὸ ἐσώτερον τοῦ καταπετάσματος,

"We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner place behind the curtain" (Hebrews 6:19 ESV)

Smyth's Greek Grammar: 2989. Relative ὡς as, how is originally an ablative (in which way) from the relative stem [ιγλιδε]ο-, whence come also ὅς, ἥ, ὅ. For the -ς, see 341. Relative ὡς has various uses as an adverb or a conjunction, all of which represent the primitive meaning.

The occurrence of ἣν tells us that ὡς functions as a relative in Hebrews 6:19.

ἄγκυραν signifies an anchor or hook (Acts 27:29-30, 40).

Do the words ἀσφαλῆ τε καὶ βεβαίαν modify "anchor" or "hope"?

Christopher W. Cowan answers:

While ἄγκυραν is the closest noun in agreement, commentators have frequently found the image of an anchor entering through the curtain into the heavenly holy place to be problematic.96 As a result, many have argued that either (1) “sure and steadfast” are modifying “anchor,” while the participle, “enters,” reaches back to modify “hope,”97 or (2) all three attributes modify “hope.”98 But such concerns seem unnecessary. Of course anchors do not reach up into the heavens, nor do they enter into the holy place! But the imagery accomplishes what the author intends: to illustrate and reinforce his message of a hope that is firmly secured.99 Moreover, attempts to argue that the attributes modify “hope” but not “anchor” seem hollow since the author identifies the two—hope is “like an anchor.”100

See Cowan, “Confident Of Better Things”: Assurance Of Salvation In The Letter To The Hebrews, page 148 (2012 Ph.D. Diss.).

Compare https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2014/12/jesus-entered-within-curtain-how.html

Morphology, Syntax, and the Wonder of Language

Morphemes are minimal units of meaning,  but what a difference they make. The Greek morpheme δελφύς/Δελφός means "womb." However, if one prefixes an alpha to it, the word refers to a brother. Conversely, ἄτομος contains an alpha-privative so that the prefix negates the morpheme to produce the meaning, "uncuttable" or "indivisible," etc. The same phenomenon occurs in Latin with the morpheme utilis. By simply adding in to this adnominal, a "useful" tool becomes a "useless" one. These shifts in morphological signification take place due to the derivational feature of morphology.

On the other hand, syntax refers to word order or the architecture of linguistic signs. Cambridge Dictionary defines syntax as "the grammatical arrangement of words in a sentence." The importance of syntax depends on the extent of lingual inflection that a language possesses, yet this does not mean that syntax goes out the window when languages are less inflected with respect to morphology: syntax is still important whether one speaks English, German, French or Spanish.

For example, English, Greek, Latin and other languages distinguish between grammatical subjects and objects (e.g., "The dog bit the man") but the latter tongues indicate which word is the subject or object by means of morphological inflections. For example, in the Latin sentence canis mordet hominem, one knows which word is subject primarily through recognizing morphemic inflections such that canis is the subject and hominem is the direct object of mordet. Furthermore, Latin and Greek display syntactic patterns that are recurrent (subject--verb-object), so syntax is important even in highly inflected languages.

Language is a fascinating wonder that is unique to human beings: it is "one of the skills that separates humans from the rest of the animal kingdom" (Pat Kuhl qtd. in Restak 230). The human ability to utter meaningful sentences is another indication that we are made in a wonderful and awe-inspiring way (Psalm 139:14).

Further Reading:

Fasold, Ralph W., and Jeff Connor-Linton, eds. 2006. An Introduction to Language and Linguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Restak, Richard. The Mind. New York: Bantam, 1988.

https://petaa.edu.au/litportal/litportal/Resources-for-Curriculum/Upper-primary/Spelling/Morphemic-awareness-upper.aspx

Job Was Chaste (Modified Talk)-Job 31

James 3:17 states that divine wisdom (the wisdom from above) is first of all "chaste" or clean. As we consider Job's example of chasteness tonight, our focus will be on moral and spiritual chasteness. Furthermore, we'll focus on chastity when it comes to our personal behavior and entertainment choices. So let's consider how Job remained chaste, then discuss how we can imitate his example.

Job 31:1 (read): Job made a covenant with his eyes. The Insight book gives this definition for "covenant": "An agreement between two or more persons to do or refrain from doing some act; a compact; a contract." We could equally define covenant as a binding or solemn agreement. The point is that covenant-making is serious; it is not something that we should take take lightly.

Job concluded a contract with his eyes; he refused to look improperly at another woman. Job recognized the strong link between seeing and desiring.

How can imitate Job?

[Show picture]

We too can strike a covenant with our eyes by making a firm resolve to avoid looking at others improperly and we can avoid pornography, which is implicitly designed to stir up improper desire via the eyes.

A second way that we can remain chaste is found in Job 31:2-3 (read).

We need to think about the potential consequences of our actions. Notice the powerful question that Job posed in verse 3.

Before violating Jehovah's laws on fornication or his principles on viewing unclean entertainment, we could ask ourselves, what are the potential consequences of committing porneia? Some of the bad results could be sexually transmitted diseases, unwanted pregnancies, abortions, ruined relationships, a guilty conscience and a damaged relationship with Jehovah. Like Job, we need to think seriously about the potential consequences of our actions. Are a few minutes of pleasure worth losing our eternal inheritance?

To further assist us, Job mentions a final safeguard in Job 31:4 (read).

The eyes of Jehovah are everywhere (Proverbs 15:3). If we keep this attitude, it can be a protection for us. Whether at school, at work or alone at home, may we always remember that Jehovah considers our steps and he can read our hearts. 

Job's example teaches us how to remain chaste. An essential part of keeping clean is making a firm resolve to avoid impropriety with our eyes. In line with Job, Jesus later warned that anyone who keeps on looking at a woman so as to have passion for her in his heart has already committed adultery in his heart (Matthew 5:28). This scripture reveals that chastity is not just a matter of the mind, but it's a heart matter as well. By imitating Job, we'll be happier and experience the joy of pleasing Jehovah our God. 

Words of the Month (June 2024)

1. Kakistocracy (noun)- "government by the worst citizens." See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kakistocracy

The word has a Greek etymology.

2. Apodeictic-"unquestionably true by virtue of demonstration"

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/apodeictic

The adjective has Latin and Greek roots.

3. "Pusillanimity" which means "Want of that firmness and strength of mind which constitutes courage or fortitude; weakness of spirit; cowardliness; that feebleness of mind which shrinks from trifling or imaginary dangers" (Webster's 1928 English Dictionary. From the Latin abstract noun "pusillanimitas.")

4. Egoism-"Ethics. the view that morality ultimately rests on self-interest."

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/egoism

Chomsky, Surface Structure and Deep Structure (Linguistics)

[This is part of some research I did years ago. Please, let's not relitigate whether Chomsky is right or not: I merely want to discuss surface and deep structure here. On-topic comments welcomed. Thank you.]

In the 1960s, Noam Chomsky discovered that "language has an outer and inner aspect" (Chomsky 32). He called the outer aspect of language "surface structure" and the inner aspect he termed "deep structure." Surface structure refers to "the particular words and phrases used to make up a sentence" (Morris 237). Yule defines surface structure as 'the syntactic form taken in actual sentences.' Conversely, deep structure is "the underlying abstract structure that determines [the] semantic interpretation" of a sentence (Chomsky 33). The deep structural component of language is what enables linguists to study the various language systems of the world: it provides the basis for a universal grammar that operates according to certain well-defined rules despite numerous variations in surface structure (Black 18). The example that psychologist Charles Morris gives demonstrates this fact:

The ocean is unusually calm tonight.

Tonight the ocean is particularly calm.

Compared to most nights, tonight the ocean is calm.

These examples indicate that language is systematic and contains not only a surface, but also an inherent or underlying grammatical structure. Every language has both a surface and underlying grammar that determines how sounds and words are combined and utilized to communicate meaning within the language. Two major components of grammar are semantics and syntax.

Sources:

Black, David A. Linguistics for Students of NT Greek: A Survey of Basic Concepts and Applications. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1995.

Chomsky, Noam. Cartesian Linguistics: A Chapter in the History of Rationalist Thought. New York: Harper and Row, 1996.

Morris, Charles, G. Understanding Psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1996.

Yule, George. The Study of Language. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996. 

Determinism, Free Will, and Neuroscience

I believe that neuroscience tends to be deterministic. Now to be clear, I would not say that all neuroscientists are determinists but it seems that neuroscience continuously moves in that direction. This point seems to be substantiated by what I've read in one book that covers four views of free will. Furthermore, the late Francis Crick suggested that free will is an illusion created by the brain such that we have a sense of free will, which is not the same thing as having free will:

"The Astonishing Hypothesis is that 'You,' your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules" (Francis Crick, The Astonishing Hypothesis, page 3).

Owen Flanagan (a philosopher and Duke professor of neurobiology) appears to reject free will and views it as a disease while Joel B. Green provides evidence that science is leading us to believe "free won't" is more likely than free will: he too works in neuroscience. Many other examples could be given of neuroscientists who affirm determinism rather than free will. Even the notable Churchlands (Patricia and Paul) are known as "eliminative materialists," which means they want to replace talk of emotions (mental states) with neuroscientific terminology (brain states) and flatten any distinction between the two categories. I would be very surprised if either Patricia or Paul believed in libertarian free will.

To summarize, it is my contention that neuroscience largely tends to be deterministic and increasingly so; on the other hand, there are many neuroscientists who affirm free will for one reason or another. But none of what I say here is meant to be a repudiation of neuroscience in toto: I greatly appreciate its useful insights.

Sources Consulted: Watson, Gary (editor). Free Will. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.

Flanagan, Owen J. The Problem of the Soul: Two Visions of Mind and How to Reconcile Them. New York: Basic Books, 2002.

Green, Joel B. Body, Soul, and Human Life: The Nature of Humanity in the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academics, 2008. Print.

See also https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18958759-investigating-life-s-meaning

Christ Condemned Sin "in the flesh" (Romans 8:3)

Jesus was like his brothers/sisters in every way except he was without sin (Hebrews 4:15-16; 1 Peter 2:21-25).

The Apostle Paul writes under inspiration: "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh" (Romans 8:3, KJV)

So Christ was manifested in the "likeness" of sinful flesh (ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας), but he himself "condemned sin in the flesh" (κατέκρινε τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐν τῇ σαρκί). Zerwick's Grammatical Analysis of the Greek NT states:

"ὁμοίωμα likeness; not identity, because not prone to sin, not mere resemblance, as truly flesh" (p. 475).

See BDAG Greek-English Lexicon for more info on ὁμοίωμα.

The Bible's View of Prostitution

Does the Bible ever say there is nothing wrong with prostitution or with being a prostitute? No it does not.

https://www.biblicalcyclopedia.com/P/prostitute.html

https://www.openbible.info/topics/prostitution

https://www.jw.org/en/library/books/pure-worship/survives/bring-end-to-your-prostitution/

https://biblehub.com/topical/p/prostitute.htm

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/ancient-israel/sacred-prostitution-in-the-story-of-judah-and-tamar/

https://www.proquest.com/openview/86440a167e523162b886d0222e80f4f9/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/prostitution

Galatians 3:19 (NIV)-"given through angels"

Greek (WH): Τί οὖν ὁ νόμος; τῶν παραβάσεων χάριν προσετέθη, ἄχρις ἂν ἔλθῃ τὸ σπέρμα ᾧ ἐπήγγελται, διαταγεὶς δι' ἀγγέλων ἐν χειρὶ μεσίτου·

"The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator" (NIV)

The context strongly indicates that the Mosaic Law is the ὁ νόμος under discussion in this text (Galatians 3:17-18). The Law was "added" until Messiah should come in order that transgressions could be made manifest. Moreover, Paul writes that ὁ νόμος had become a tutor (παιδαγωγὸς ἡμῶν) until τῆς πίστεως arrived (Galatians 3:24-25).

The Exodus account concerning Sinai is silent about angels transmitting the Law to Moses, but the NT speaks about angels/messengers of ὁ νόμος more than once (Acts 7:53; Hebrews 2:2; compare Acts 7:35, 38). I'm not surprised by Paul's reference since the angels shared in distributing the ten plagues and guided Israel through the wilderness, etc.

For a thorough analysis of the grammar in Galatians 3:19, see Porter, Stanley E., ed. 2019. Paul and Scripture. Leiden: Brill. Pages 327-330.

A Few Recommended Books (May 2024)

                        

Antonio Damasio on Reason

Interesting thought from Antonio Damasio (a "renowned" neurologist):

"Nature appears to have built the apparatus of rationality not just on top of the apparatus of biological regulation, but also from it and with it. The mechanisms for behavior beyond drives and instincts use, I believe, both the upstairs and the downstairs: The neocortex becomes engaged along with the older brain core, and rationality results from their concerted activity." (Descartes' Error, page 128).

Upstairs=neocortex

Downstairs=subcortex

Bibliographical Information: Antonio Damasio, Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. New York: Penguin Books, 2005.

Life and Death Are in the Power of the Tongue (Proverbs 18:21)

All of us have to watch  how we use our tongues (how we speak). We're imperfect and prone to "stumble many times" in word and deed (James 3:2). In fact, one proverb warns us that life and death are in the power of the tongue and those who love its fruit will eat the tongue's fruitage (Proverbs 18:21).

The ancients recognized this looming danger: hence, one writing states:

"The human tongue is not free, like some other members of the human body,  but is confined in the mouth, and moreover is constantly in moisture:  yet how many burns can it cause with its sharp edge and its fire. How  much worse then would it have been, were that dangerous member of the  human body possessed of more facilities."--Levit. Rabba 16.

James 3:6 (NAB)-"The tongue is also a fire. It exists among our members as a world of malice, defiling the whole body and setting the entire course of our lives on fire, itself set on fire by Gehenna."

Divine Hiddenness?

I've given little attention to the problem of divine hiddenness, but one treatment of the subject is by Peter van Inwagen. See his book, The Problem of Evil. I read the book some years ago and it covers the logical problem of evil in an interesting way, then discusses divine hiddenness toward the conclusion of the book. By LPE, I mean the supposedly contradictory set of propositions that 1) God is omnipotent; 2) God is omnibenevolent; 3) Evil exists.

Regarding the issue of hiddenness, I would say that God is hidden in one sense or Deus absconditus (Exodus 33:20; Isaiah 45:15; John 1:18; 1 John 4:20), but revealed in another sense (Deus revelatus). No one can see his face, yet he speaks face-to-face with Moses (Exodus 33:11). Merold Westphal maintains that we are too ontologically inadequate to see God: having a glimpse of his brilliant doxa would overwhelm us, like looking directly at the radiant sun (Ezekiel 43:2).

On the other hand, God's invisible qualities are clearly perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and divinity (Psalm 19:1-3; Romans 1:20). Paul said that God has not left himself without witness by the rains he provides and the crops that grow (Acts 14:17). Moreover, Jehovah directly communicated with some men, even supplying miraculous evidence that he exists. As serious thinkers have pointed out hitherto, critics might take issue with these accounts, but they illustrate the possibility that God is not completely hidden.

Besides, Peter van Inwagen rightly argues that God wants us to do more than believe in him: he wants humans to love and worship him. If Jehovah always provided visible evidence that he existed, it might conflict with the ultimate goal that he is trying to achieve (Revelation 4:10-11). The inspired apostle likewise wrote that we walk by faith, not by sight (2 Corinthians 5:8). One day, God will reveal himself in order that all may know he is Jehovah (Zechariah 14:9).

The Council of Nicea Ecclesiastically Changed Things (Studer)

"The council of Nicea may with good reason be regarded as signalling a new era of Church history. In fact, it marks the beginning of a close co-operation between the Churches of early Christianity and the Roman empire, which was to bring about unforeseeable consequences for all fields of ecclesiastical life.  As far as the more outward aspect is concerned, a structure was fashioned at that time which resembled a good deal that of the civil organization of the empire, out of which the five great patriarchates were to emerge" (Basil Studer, Trinity and Incarnation, 101).

This relationship affected "all fields of ecclesiastical life" including the liturgy, kerygma, spirituality and theology (102).