%%USERNAME%%    %%ACCWORDS%% %%ONOFF%% |
 My primary Writing.com blog. |
|
Logocentric (adj). Regarding words and language as a fundamental expression of an external reality (especially applied as a negative term to traditional Western thought by postmodernist critics). Sometimes I just write whatever I feel like. Other times I respond to prompts, many taken from the following places: Thanks for stopping by!  |
 Prompt for October 5, 2025: Do you believe the Bible is 100% truth? Why or why not? At the risk of getting all philosophical, I think it's important to define what is meant by the word "truth" in this case, because there are a couple of different ways to interpret the Bible. I've mentioned this in prior blog posts, but there are two broad interpretations of the Bible that are most widely accepted: Biblical inerrancy is the school of thought that everything in the Bible is true, accurate, and without error. It's often associated with advocacy for the factual precision or literalism of the text in most respects. Biblical infallibility is the school of thought that the Bible is true in its purpose (i.e., to provide guidance in faith and life, and to tell the story of God and His people), even if some of the specifics — such as historical or scientific information — are not entirely accurate. For example, let's take a look at the very opening verses of the Bible: 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. — Genesis 1:1-5 (NIV) According to an inerrant view of the Bible, one might look at that text and say, "The Bible very clearly states what God created on the first day. On the first day, out of nothing, God created the heavens and earth, and day and night. Therefore, since there are 24 hours in the day, the Biblical truth is that God created the heavens and the earth, and day and night in 24 hours." According to an infallible view of the Bible, one might look at that text and say, "Well, the Bible very clearly states what God created on the first and second day. But does the Bible say a day is exactly 24 hours? Actually, in Psalm 90:4, it says, 'a thousand years in Your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night' ... and in 2 Peter 3:8 it says, 'but do not forget this one thing, dear friends: with the Lord, a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day'. Based on that it seems pretty clear that God exists outside of the construct of linear time, so what if "the first day" where God created the heavens and the earth was actually a thousand of our linear years? Or even a billion? At the end of the day, the exact length of chronological time it took isn't the important detail here; the Biblical truth is that, however long it may have taken in human years, God created the heavens and earth, day and night." Ultimately, I suppose I land more on the infallible side of things where Biblical interpretation is concerned. The Bible is, after all, the story of God and His people, and in most cases, we don't look to other storybooks to form our understanding of scientific facts and historical accuracy. We wouldn't read Frankenstein or The Island of Doctor Moreau for their scientific truths, and I'm not sure we should be reading the Bible that way either. That said, I do believe that the Bible is the divinely-inspired word of God, and I believe it's incumbent upon all believers to read it and use it to inform how they live their lives. I just happen to believe there has to be some synthesis there, because there are inconsistencies in the Bible. If you're reading the Bible from an inerrant perspective, there are quite a few contradictions that are difficult to explain. If you're reading the Bible from an infallible perspective, it's a little easier to square some of those circles and realize that religion and science (or religion and history) are not necessarily fundamentally at odds with one another. Take the Genesis example from above. If you interpret the days of creation from Genesis, and all other dates relayed in the Bible, as literal, chronological truth, the earth is only about 6,000 years old and that is difficult to reconcile with things like the scientific study of evolution, paleontology, etc. With the inherent timeline contradiction, one or the other has to be discounted. But if you interpret the days of creation from Genesis as potentially being billions of years, you start to see how both the Biblical truth and scientific truth can simultaneously both be accurate. Now, none of this is to say that you should assume that the entire Bible is open to interpretation and should be warped to fit your own tastes and preferences; that's just as bad as prooftexting (i.e., the practice of taking specific verses out of context to reinforce a preconception). But the challenge I think Christians are tasked with is to take the Bible and interpret how it applies to their own context, whatever that may be. Where we tend to run into trouble as Christians is when we try to inflexibly assume that a book that was written literally thousands of years ago is the final word on not just matters of faith, but also on matters of science, history, medicine, politics, etc. as well. To me, the Bible is a lot like the United States Constitution. I don't have an "originalist" mentality, where nothing can be changed or deviated from or expanded upon from what was first put down on paper or the "intentions" of the people that wrote those words. I think that the world has evolved a lot since that time and, as a result, it requires a lot of study, intentionality, and humility to figure out how to interpret the infallible truths of the past and reconcile them with our very different present-day world. On a personal note, having read the Bible multiple times at this point, the one thing that keeps jumping out at me over and over again as a recurring theme is that we are tasked with loving God and loving each others above all else. So my "pro tip" on reading and interpreting the Bible is to start with that as an absolute baseline. If your interpretation of the Bible is leading you away from either of those things, that's probably a red flag. |
| To qualify for my Watch List every month, the following has to be something that I've watched that's new to me. It doesn't necessarily have to be a current show, but it can't be reruns or rewatches of something I've already seen. So if I'm including it in this list, it means this month is the first time I've watched it. I'll put "DNF" (Did Not Finish) next to anything that I stopped watching and have no immediate plans to finish. Movies  Afterburn Bob Trevino Likes It Licorice Pizza The Old Guard 2 One Battle After AnotherIt was a mixed bag of movies this year. Afterburn was a pretty mediocre post-apocalyptic action movie, Bob Trevino Likes It was a pretty depressing movie about a lonely young woman desperate to turn a random stranger with the same name as her deadbeat dad into a father figure, and The Old Guard 2 was a decent sequel to the original, but also clearly one of those movies that was only made to set up another sequel later and thus kind of frustrating to watch. I hate investing two hours in a movie only to have it end by basically saying, "TO BE CONTINUED... come back and watch the next one in two years!" One Battle After Another was excellent. Paul Thomas Anderson continues to prove that he's an extremely talented filmmaker with a point of view, and this was his best movie in a long time. The performances from Leonardo DiCaprio, Benicio Del Toro, and Chase Infiniti were particularly memorable, and the storyline with the Christmas Adventurer's Club was bizarre and memorable. The runtime was two hours and forty-two minutes and I went to see an 11pm show on a week night, and it's a testament to the film's quality that I wasn't the least bit tired and didn't feel like it dragged on in the least. Watching it reminded me that there are a small number of Paul Thomas Anderson movies that I haven't seen, so I started going back through his back catalogue, starting with Licorice Pizza, which a lot of friends I know absolutely love. I thought it was just okay; the filmmaking was great and I appreciate that Anderson is always trying something new, but that one just didn't land with me as well as One Battle After Another. I am excited to continue to go through his prior films and watch or rewatch them. Television Daredevil: Born Again (Season 1) Eyes of Wakanda The Hunting Wives (Season 1) Ironheart (Season 1) The Summer I Turned Pretty (Season 3) Wild Cards (Season 1) — DNFThis month, I got caught up on watching a lot of the Marvel projects I worked on but haven't yet seen the final versions of. Daredevil: Born Again was the best of the bunch, in my opinion, although Eyes of Wakanda was definitely unique and fun for a four-episode limited series. Wild Cards was a forgettable procedural that I only watched a couple episodes of, and The Summer I Turned Pretty is a show my wife follows, so I wouldn't say that I so much "watched" it as "was in the same room while it was on."  And The Hunting Wives was a show that I really enjoyed for the first seven episodes, but it feels like they really ran out of steam on the eighth and final episode, which was a real bummer.Other Critical Role: The Age of UmbraThe team behind TTRPG live-play sensation Critical Role has run a number of small miniseries to keep the channel fresh while preparing for Campaign 4 (which just launched this past Thursday). They ran Exandria Unlimited: Divergence, an anthology series set in the same world as the first three campaigns, they ran Wildemount Wildlings, a play on sleep-away summer camp, and The Age of Umbra, a dark fantasy game in a new campaign setting, developed for Critical Role's proprietary TTRPG system, Daggerheart. I'm hoping to get around to watching all of the miniseries eventually — and keep pace with Campaign 4 — but I definitely wanted to check out The Age of Umbra to experience a new TTRPG world and see how Daggerheart is played in practice. From the latter aspect, I thought it was interesting to see how some of the new game mechanics work. I think it's a bit of a mixed bag; some of the pieces of the new system I really like, but others I think are overly complicated or unnecessary. And the campaign world itself was fine, if a little uninspired. Overall, it was a good watch, but I'm glad it was a miniseries and not a full campaign. Campaign 4 will return to D&D 5E (2024) rules, and take place in a completely brand-new world created by Brennan Lee Mulligan, the Dimension 20 Game Master. It'll be the first time that Matthew Mercer isn't GMing a main Critical Role campaign, which is going to be really interesting. TOP PICK: One Battle After Another |
View Portfolio
Visit Notebook
Send Gift Points
Awards
Badges
Send Email
Community Newsfeed
General Discussion
Sponsored Items
Book of Trinkets
Static Items
Books
Groups
Interactive Stories
Audio
Campfire Creatives
Community Notes
Crossword Puzzles
Documents
Folders
Images
In & Outs
Madlibs
Photo Albums
Polls
Product Reviews
Quizzes
Survey Forms
Web Pages
Word Searches
