Tagged: life

No Yes

Any person who engages ancient languages with curiosity soon discovers that the word “yes” isn’t available. For me, it was in studying Biblical Hebrew that I came across this fact. Seriously, look up the word “yes” in your OT concordance and then search the Hebrew (or Aramaic) word behind any “yes” you find. The semantic domain will be “right” “true” “honest”, but not what we mean or do with “yes”.

You’ll find the interwebs and AI’s explain that “yes” is a late development due to its “conceptual abstractness”. Okay, Boomer.

How does it work then, I wondered? How could people ask and answer questions without such a simple word?

Then, today, it occurred to me.

And, as you’ll see, I cannot commend enough to study the Bible through the lens of children talking—if you’re undertaking the task as a native English speaker in 2026.

So I ask my daughter, 6 yrs old, “Did A- go to school with you yesterday?” (See where I’m going?)

My daughter replies, not with “Yes” or “No”, but how? She replies, “Sometimes A- goes to school with us.” Or whatever similar seeming method to withstand interrogation.

And the engagements with my kids (and Ethiopian family members—who incidentally tell me they do have “yes” in their native tongue, but which I have come to believe cannot possibly be what we mean by “yes”) are always like this. I ask a yes or no question, and they answer without yes or no.

It’s all clear now.

I can actually calm down. To me, I am doing them a favor with a yes or no question. But from their perspective, they don’t have an option with which to reply other than narrative answers.

Kinda fascinating, if frustrating.

You’re welcome.

Some Thoughts About Dearborn After Light Review of Last Night’s Events

-In his infamous documentary Pumping Iron, Arnold has a conversation with Lou which discusses whether it is better to be the king of the hill (defending from all comers) or the singularly focused threat on the way up. America is obviously the king of the hill. With this status comes threats and enemies and trolls and jokers etc. Islam needs to be relegated to the myth section of the bookstore, but I am not sure of the path to make that happen.

-In recap: a bunch of (in the case of Dearborn, presumably legal) immigrants outbred and then outvoted natives. At face value, I have no issue with this.

-If we believe the mohammedans lie at will (we do believe they lie and they do lie), I am not sure that talking with them is the answer.

-If my above recap is correct, one path would be to move to Dearborn or any other similar towns and out politic them. But that seems like a weird goal to have and a weird life to lead. Most people simply move for better jobs, not a crusade.

-In my recent readings on Vietnam, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Revolutionary War before them, I am struck by how turbulent the times and events were. And yet here we are.

No, I Don’t Think You Do—smh

“We’ve been reading that Huck Finn book you used for school.” The student would have known by “we” the man meant, “your mom and I”. “It has some highlighting in it. Would you say that it is a previous student’s or yours?”

The driving age step-son answered, “Probably mine.”

“Oh,” said the step-dad, who for 8 years has tried to impress upon the lad the penultimate nature of truthfulness. “I was going to say, ‘If you had said it was some other kid’s annotations, that it seemed like a kid just marked up things because he had to, without actually meaning to mark where he highlighted.’”

There was a slight pause, not long enough to indicate shame, then a ready confession , “That was the first book I read at [excellent charter school]. So I probably highlighted at random because I didn’t understand what annotating meant.”

“Ah. Okay.”

Silence ensued for the next few hundred yards of road.

The man began again, “Would you say that you understand what annotating means now?”

“Yeah. I mean, sometimes, I still probably make extra marks because my hand is there with the highlighter and all,” the boy rambled, still not betraying he understood the nature of the path he had set off on. “And anyhow, they don’t really check highlighting anymore. Now they look at the notes in the margin.”

The family finally arrived on the home stretch.

The dad resumed, “So what I am trying to understand is why you would try to fool them instead of ask for help. Like highlighting at random is some kind of deception, versus just asking for additional explanation.”

“Then my homework scores wouldn’t have been good,” the teenager countered. Against all odds and historical evidence, he delivered his next claim with moral superiority, approaching outrage. “You want me to get bad grades?!”

I looked at A-, I mean, the man looked at the student in the eyes. The student pulled his backpack from the trunk without breaking eye-contact, in some sort of primal posturing ritual, taught by who knows who.

The man, from a the street corner just beside hopelessness, concluded, “Yes. I would rather you always tell the truth and fail.”

My Style Solution to Trans Insanity (Laughably Unserious, If Ultimately Provocative)

A recent debater on Triggernometry said, “So the sex that was recorded um and the gender that was recorded on their birth certificate, you can say, ‘Actually that was a mistake’.”

I assure you, dear reader, that I am earnest when I ask this, no matter how it sounds. But I ask, “So, if we stop recording gender/sex on birth certificates, how does a person know they’re trans? If that is the mistake, then why not nip it in the bud right then and there? Birth certificate has name and weight but no recording of a gender/sex?”

Has anyone heard this approach of mine in a debate or discussion forum? Please do share if you know how they respond.

Just Stop. Stop Saying (and Believing) “AI Got It Wrong”

Every time that someone says or types “AI got it wrong” all we know is that person does not know what AI is.

So, let’s all remember Mark Twain’s admonition, “It is be to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.”

(To be clear, AI is a substantively different way of computing. It is not a person. It does not think. It is not bound by morality. It does not have a soul or free will. It is not ever right. And it is not ever wrong.)

Note on Christian’s “Science Proves God” Excitability

I recently read Erwin Schrödinger’s essay called, “Heredity and the Quantum Theory”. In it he uses the word “code” to describe parts of his overall point. He may have meant simply something encoded, like the way Morse code works. But it still called to mind the latest great excitement among smart conservatives who stop short of making Gospel Proclamation the basis of their platform. That excitement being the response to the discovery that the human genome is a code.

Why do they get excited? Well, code means programmer and we suddenly find ourselves back in Aquinas’ watchmaker world.

The trouble is, Hume destroyed the “watchmaker” apologetic. (In short, there need to be two “watches” in order for there to be a watch—nobody finds one gadget and declares it was made. Instead, they know one gadget was made and when they find a second ((or more) similar gadget, by analogy, they are confident to assert it was made. The point is, says Hume, there is one “gadget” ((the known universe)) that we have “found”. And so the debate over whether it was made or not cannot possibly be solved by analogy.)

Anyhow, the excitement is unfounded for a larger reason. In a word, that reason is “revelation”. All the truths of the Bible’s writings are declared or asserted to be revealed truths; that is, men reporting and recording what Yahweh or Jesus or the Holy Spirit communicated to us mortals. Don’t ask me how I know as if I have some special insight—it is the authors themselves who assert this. It isn’t mystical; it is their actual claim. You can read it for yourself!

The Biblical canon is closed—yes? But let’s say it isn’t.

Are we going to say that the additional material should be rooted in the quantification of material evidence? 66 writings formed from revelation from the God himself, but the next are from the images (objective measurements) of creation, as taken by devices only created thousands of years into the advent of mankind? No. And you agree with me deep down already.

How do I know?

Because, like me, you look around and likewise see the sheer lunacy of people’s claims about God.

And you know that the Bible is, and must remain, a limiting factor on human power. Yes, the God of Moses, the God of Abraham before him, and the Godman Jesus is really real. Yes, he selected and used a small number of men over a large period of time to communicate himself to us. And, yes, the communication has ceased. The canon is closed. Unless you want to open it by asserting the claim that God is using you to communicate to mankind something new and inherently contradictory to the other 66 writings.

This is what is meant by the canon is closed. Anything matching the canon has already been said. Anything not matching is inherently not canonical.

The Bible writers claimed to be divinely appointed to pass a message from God to mankind, to you and me. It is a bold claim. It is not what scientists claim.

We are well served to not conflate the two.

My Latest Thought On The Leadership Void

I have long held (recent years) that there is a void in leadership.

As I continue to read articles from the major historical events of Vietnam, WW2, and Civil Rights (thank you to Library of America), a new thought occurred.

We have poor leaders—that is given. My new thought: the reason we have such poor leaders is there is nothing to do. There is no group to lead, no task to accomplish, and no need to unify.

One “Either/Or” in a Field which often Demands “Both/And”

The variety of Christian denominations—even those which claim Biblical Authority—demands explanation.

Either (A) prayer helps interpret scripture, and the many denominations are mostly led by false teachers who didn’t pray the right prayer or to the right god, OR (B) prayer doesn’t help interpret scripture, and the many denominations are the result of the many methods of interpreting scripture.

My vote is (B). Besides the inherent loneliness within (A), it is illogical. Words (whether inspired or not) have meaning and the meanings are derived at by the same method, regardless of one’s prayer life.

To be clear: even if you are not a believer, a Christian, I believe you can come to understand the meaning of the most unintelligible visions and oracles the Bible writer’s provided. The “meaning” does not compel one to action.

The “compelling” is where the mystery lies.

Reading Log 7.11.2026

I have said it before and will say it again and again and again. Hobbes’ Leviathan is absolute must-read material. I am rarely more invigorated while reading than when reading Hobbes. I exhort you, brethren, find a copy and make time for it. You will not be disappointed.

A former professor from the seminary reminded me recently that as an alumni, I had access to an online theological library. So I tracked it down and joined, $10 a month. Around the same time as joining, the same professor told me his recommendation for a commentary set for a church—meaning lay people. I had asked his opinion because I wanted to start a library at the church I joined. His recommendation was the NIV Application Commentary, which uses three approaches to each passage and never or rarely mentions any original language issues in a manner that requires training to understand. The three approaches are, “Original Meaning”, “Bridging Contexts”, and “Contemporary Significance”. Anyhow, I do have training in the original languages and I hate reading anything about the Bible in which the author has made the decision for me, preferring instead to read authors who lay out the evidence from which to choose what to think for myself. That’s where the Anchor Bible Commentary set comes in to play. I am certain there are other solid academic commentaries, but Anchor is kind of the gold standard. By way of example, the NIVAC’s 1 Peter volume might include, “Peter wrote…” and the Anchor Bible might write, “The author of 1 Peter wrote…” I prefer to approach the Bible Indiana Jones-style. (Recall—there are no priests!)

Boring details of my life, I know, but while all this was happening, I had started to get anxious about the issue of accuracy in the digital realm. Specifically, I had seen a few examples of how streaming services are latently airing edited versions of beloved entertainment. Long story short, I determined that I did not want to ever be distracted by worry about whether the content I was reading on a screen was original or edited, so I started tracking down a used set of the Anchor Bible commentary volumes. And I found and bought one (not quite complete). Then, lo and behold, I got an email announcing that the online theological library was ending its availability to alumni—at least as accessed outside of a proper library. No real reasons were given, but I was very thankful and felt very wise in my decision to begin to purchase the actual books for my home library.

All that to say this: I have for many years struggled in my attempt to a good habit of daily Bible study. As I have mentioned, I always start with the Bible if I have time to read. But I never loved my plan of just reading it and I also have never enjoyed using a devotional which were always so clearly superficial and kitsch so as to distract me from the intent of Bible study. Around the time of all this purchasing and subscription-cancelling etc. I had been in Ezra and Nehemiah, so I, one day, decided to see what ol’ Anchor said about them. And, boy, was I ignorant. It’s actually fascinating to me how much I had never known. This was part of the reason I began to read them recently anyhow. (Yay me.) Anyhow, the main thing to share here is that 1 and 2 Chronicles and Ezra and Nehemiah are all contemporary to each other. And the date of writing may be as late 150BC (don’t quote me on the date). Also, Haggai and Zechariah are the prophets of that same time. So what’s that? Like 6 books, spread from after 2 Kings to the end of the OT, in the Christian canon’s arrangement. I had known the Jewish canon concluded with (1&) 2 Chronicles, but I hadn’t ever studied the other four books, or committed to memory anything about their dates at the least. I did know that Nehemiah is where the tradition of standing during scripture reading gets it start.

All that said, I am happy to report that I have my new way of daily Bible study. I just read a passage and its “comment”. I have even been able to interest my wife in listening to it as I try to rid believers, one at a time, of the notion that one can gain understanding of the Bible by praying. It just doesn’t work like that.

Onward.

Netflix made a Frankenstein movie. I couldn’t finish it. But then I watched Bride!, as you know. I mentioned this at work to a reader and she asked me if I had read the book. I had not. So here we are. I haven’t researched it entirely, but I get the sense that Shelley (married to the famous writer Percy Bysshe Shelley, and daughter herself to very famous writers) really did invent the “monster” story, which pervades all manner of entertainment to this day. Quickly, I do want to note here that Frankenstein is the name of the creator, not the monster. And, imho, the book itself isn’t that good. But the idea is—obviously. The idea being, what if the creature you bring to life is a devil, not an angel?

Farmer Boy was fun. My main criticism is that a city kid of today really and truly cannot use much of the information which is transmitted and which was conceivably useful to farmers back in the day.

GW continues to be great. He is now President, not exactly by choice. Also interestingly, the state of politics in America back then was so startlingly similar to today, that a new idea has formed in me. This idea being that while everyone who wishes America well can appreciate the “fighter” in Trump, the truth is that we really need a leader who knows how to gain respect of everyone. That is who George Washington was. People were as vehemently opposed in their desires, motivations, and methods as we are today. But when a decision was needed, they all agreed GW was the man for the job. How did he do it? Moral living and pure motivations. How can such a man be formed and found? Imho, by studying GW. And by providence’s intervention.

I can’t explain it, but any time I spend away from Shakespeare causes me to forget how great he is. Luckily, he is so abundantly great that merely reading a line or two is all that I need to fall back in love with him. What a writer. What stories.

Merchant of Venice is in the Great Books of the Western World’s Great Ideas Program guided reading on the topic of “Philosophy of Law and Jurisprudence.” This is because the character agrees to forfeit “a pound of flesh” if he can’t pay back his debt. To generalize this contract, the question Shakespeare raises is, “Can a person use the law to bind himself to commit an unlawful act?” The largest perspective being, “What is the name of the thing which prevents a person from freely entering into a lawful contract which has as one result unlawfulness? If the thing is ‘law’ itself, then where does it get its power, since a man freely made the contract? Doesn’t law come from man?”

In any case, Shakespeare toys with the language and big ideas as if they were nothing. And it is a whole lot of fun to read.

That’s all for today.