02/1/23

Looking at Michael Millerman’s Chapter (2022) “Heidegger, Left and Right” (Part 2 of 2)

0136 Dugin is an example of the Heideggerian Right (HR). HR philosophers are few in number and for good reason. They are considered to be the enemies of the Heideggerian Left (HL), who want to co-opt Heidegger for their theological-political convictions.

Millerman poses this question (more or less), “How does the HL view the theological-political issue of receding secularism and returning religiosity?”

0137 Here is how I associate the discussion to the Greimas square.

0138 According to the HL, A, democracy is under threat because…

0139 …B, democracy must be secular.

Even though secular is an adjective and democracy is a noun and therefore B contrasts with A, secular is a necessary qualifier. A democracy cannot be a democracy unless it is secular. Hence, when HL-friendly pundits on public-private partner television say the word, “democracy”, they actually mean “secular democracy”.

0140 C contradicts B and complements A. C is religious. Non-secular means religious, just as secular means “not religious”. But, this too is wordplay, since religions are not “non-secular”, they are believers in an ultimate foundation, D. However, from the HL Greimas square, C is nonsecular.

At this point, secular institutions take on a scientific glow. The secular (B) use theoretical disciplinary languages to model observations and measurements of social phenomena. Naturally, these models end up defining the options available for ballots in… um… a democracy (A). Thus, the ultimate foundation (D) complements the secular (B) because it (D) does not exist.

0141 D contrasts with C, contradicts A and complements B. Already, I know how D complements B. The fact that an ultimate foundation fills the slot for (D) yet does not exist, according to HL, reveals the nature of the way the ultimate foundation (D) is its own lacking.

Surely, this sounds like a contradiction in terms. But, that is the way HL rolls.

There is no God. There is no ethnos. The possibility that these statements (D) are wrong contradict (A), “democracy”, which, according to HL, must be godless (B). If these statements are incorrect, then the political system would not be a “democracy”, but a “theocracy”.

0142 Okay, HL is into wordplay.

The Heideggerian Right takes the Heideggerian Left’s wordplay at face value, producing the following remake of the HL Greimas square.

0143 As before, A, the focal word, is “democracy”.

0144 B contrasts with A, in the way that an adjective contrasts with a noun. The secret handshake allows HL pundits to indicate a secular democracy when they use the word, “democracy”, and use the word, “theocracy”, when religious folk take to the ballot box.

0145 C contradicts B because the word, “radical” (C), means “rooted”, and “secular” (B) means not religious. This implies that the radical (C) adheres to emptiness (D) with the same conviction that the religious, er… non-secular (C) adheres to an ultimate foundation (D). No wonder the radical (C) strives to eradicate the ontological and theological facets (phenomena) of the narod. The radical (C) creates conditions where other social phenomena (such as the individual, class membership, the roles of citizen and noncitizen) can be observed and measured by modern scientifically minded theoreticians (B).

0146 Emptiness (D) entails the absence of (1) an ultimate foundation encompassing both God and humans, (2) the ethnos, (3) what we evolved to be and (4) the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

D contrasts with C, contradicts A and complements B.

Emptiness (D) contrasts with radical (C) because it (C) is rooted in ‘something’ (however ephemeral, such as an act of will).

Emptiness (D) contradicts democracy (A) because the implementation of secular policies (B) reveals the root (C) to be a pure act of will, rather than a product of say… philosophical inquiry.

Emptiness (D) complements the secular (B) because the secular knows that its politics will undermine whatever traditions that they are rooted in (C).

0147 In sum, the HL diagram celebrates democracy (A) and the secular (B) while denying the religious (C) and the possibility of an ultimate foundation (D). The HR view of the HL diagram positively labels the negative attitude towards religion as “radical” (C) and the denial of an ultimate foundation (D) as “emptiness”.

0148 To me, the Greimas square for the HL and for what the HR thinks of the HL’s views must be regarded as funny. Perhaps, hilarious.

How so?

The ethnos is where our sense of humor evolves. The narod is where people formulate jokes. The secular is where people lose their sense of humor . Democracy is where the comedy of the humorless plays out on the world stage.

0149 I do not know whether Heidegger’s “fourfold” or “das Geviert” can be re-articulated as a Greimas square. It might be worth trying. Perhaps, use of the Greimas square will allow the HL to take themselves less seriously and the HR to chuckle under their beards. The problem, of course, is that Dugin is no longer laughing, because the ones who take themselves seriously have designated him, not as a philosopher, but as a threat.

Pray for the soul of Alexander Dugin’s daughter.

0150 My thanks to Millerman for his excellent book. Please check out the Millerman School and dugin.com.

01/27/23

Looking at Daniel Estulin’s Book (2021) “2045 Global Projects at War” (Part 1 of 5)

0001 Daniel Estulin holds a notable resume. He is a doctor of conceptual intelligence and a foreign policy advisor to sovereign states in Latin America and Eurasia. He has authored many books, and hosted a Spanish language TV show on RT (formerly, Russia Today). The subtitle of the book is “Tectonic Processes of Global Transformation”.

This look is a teaser for a more extensive examination, Comments on Daniel Estulin’s Book (2021) “2045 Global Projects At War”, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

0002 Estulin formulates the concept of global project and applies it to a number of civilizations, nations and international cabals. His approach is intuitive and relies on his considerable experience and knowledge. Estulin’s book is not structured in a manner that the reader learns a particular technique. Consequently, the above-mentioned comments add value. Perhaps, there is a method to Estulin’s approach.

0003 Certainly, the concept of global project is valuable, especially when applied, by Estulin, to the world in the present day. Estulin is so well informed that he exercises the concept without trouble. Does he want the rest of us to wield this tool without his years of experience, trials and reflection?

I don’t know.

0003 All I know is that humans tend to think in the ways of purely relational structures, often without realizing that fact. So, I read Estulin’s text with two purely relational structures in mind, the Greimas square and the category-based nested form.

I start with a Greimas square and focus on the key word of “capitalism”. A quick introduction to the Greimas square may be found in the other blog for this month (at www.raziemah.com for January 2023).

0004 Here is the result.

0005 The four elements are clarified by the following statements.

A is the focal term. A is also the social head. A goes with economics.

B contrasts with A. B is also the social body. B goes with politics.

C contradicts B and complements A. C is capital. Capital goes with information, intelligence and conspiracy system. Anyone who gets an investment newsletter appreciates this. The stuff of investment letters scale up when considering prices, markets and monetary policies. C is what the social head fixates on. C functions as a mind-independent being. C is what the social head thinks about.

D contrasts with C, contradicts A and complements B. D is communion. Communion (D) is the object that brings us together. Communion (D) is not a mind-independent being, even though it appears to be. It (D) is mind-dependent, in the same way that a stomach and lungs are mind dependent. We don’t just want to eat or breath. We want to eat and breathe well. Communion (D) is aesthetic, while economics (A), politics (B) and conspiracy system (C) are calculating.

01/23/23

Looking at Daniel Estulin’s Book (2021) “2045 Global Projects at War” (Part 5 of 5)

0020 So, consider the cities imaged by the global project of the New Babylon. Say “yes” to Renaissance Venice. Say “no” to Edinburgh, ship those jobs overseas and repackage the assets. Say “hello” to the City of London, full of intrigue, secret societies and corruption.

0021 Unfortunately, New Babylon is at war with other global projects.

In order to appreciate the drama, one must read Estulin’s own words.

0022 Nevertheless, Razie Mah’s e-work, Comments on Daniel Estulin’s Book (2021) 2045 Global Projects at War, available at smashwords and other e-book venues, adds value by providing a technique that students and educators may find beneficial.

Each global project contains all three permutations, arranged into an interscope. An interscope is like a three layer cake. The layers are content, situation and perspective. P1, P2 and P3 combine into three different interscopes. These interscopes associate to global projects.

0023 This examination is only a teaser for both Estulin’s book and the corresponding commentary by Razie Mah.

The New Babylon global project is one among many. Estulin covers almost a dozen.

So, one must be selective.

Razie Mah’s commentary develops diagrams for the global project of China.

0024 For all who are interested in the dynamics of global projects, Estulin’s book is a good place to start. Mah’s comments offer a comprehensible technique to apply. The latter complements the former. I encourage intellects to play with Estulin’s approach and Mah’s diagrams.

01/20/23

Looking at Alex Jones’s Book (2022) “The Great Reset” (Part 1 of 12)

0025 Alex Jones, bubbalatory founder of the InfoWars website, is currently hounded by deep-state legal-predators. He was recently fined an unimaginable number of dollars to pay for the psychological damage that he apparently inflicted as a bombastic, yet entertaining, provocateur who speaks fiction to fact. Or, is it fact to fiction?

Does fact or fiction matter? If Jones had been a provocateur for the established revolutionary spirits, there would have been no repercussions. Take a look at Steve Colbert and Keith Olbermann, who serve as provocateurs for the diverse monocultures of big government (il)liberalism.

0026 What does matter?

Or, should I ask, “What does not matter?”

At the same time that Jones is fined a grave sum, the actual murderer, who caused the plaintiffs’ real trauma, gets sentenced to life in prison, rather than execution. Perhaps, the second judge should have fined the murderer the same package that the first judge levied on Jones. Which is worse, life in prison or permanent penury?

After all, the event itself is as horrible as questioning the realness of an event.

Is it not?

0027 Of course, it is, to some.

The scholastics of the Latin Age debate this question for around 500 years (roughly, from 1100 to 1600 AD). There are two kinds of beings: ens reale (mind-independent being) and ens rationis (mind-dependent being). The terms are Latin. Speak them with an Italian or French or Spanish accent. The Latin term, “ens” is translated as “being”.

What is “being”?

Being has presence, just like things. But, things are grounded in the material and being includes the immaterial as well as the material. A being may be a purely relational structure.

0028 So, what of the crime that Alex Jones contested?

Clearly, the event of the crime is ens reale.

Also, the skeptical questions that Alex Jones raises are ens rationis.

0029 Ens reale is not the same as ens rationis.

This poses a difficulty for those schoolmen.

0030 Fast forward to the previous century, where a literature-oriented structuralist, Algirdas Julien Greimas (1917-1992 AD), adds a twist. He proposes that a spoken word (or term) generates a purely relational field of contrasting and contradicting elements, according to a particular style. The result is the Greimas square, pictured below.

0031 Here is how the Greimas square works (more or less).

A is the item in focus.

B contrasts with A.

C speaks against (or contradicts) B and complements (or implicates) A.

D contrasts with C, contradicts A and implicates B.

0032 Now, I associate these slots to the scholastic business about mind-independent (A) and mind-dependent (B) being.

0033 Well, I already can see why medieval academic debates take so many bizarre turns. The Greimas square has two items that are not labeled.

Not labeled?

Look and see.

I suspect that experts on those scholastic debates can provide the appropriate Latin terms.

0034 Today, I offer labels for C and D.

An illusion (C) is a mind-independent being that is regarded as mind-dependent.

For example, a ten-dollar bill is a mind-independent being that is regarded as a mind-dependent tool for purchasing something. Here is an illusion that functions on a day to day basis.

A delusion (D) is a mind-dependent being that is regarded as mind-independent.

For example, confidence in the value of a ten-dollarbill is a mind-dependent being that is regarded as mind-independent. Inflation erodes confidence.

01/4/23

Looking at Alex Jones’s Book (2022) “The Great Reset” (Part 12 of 12)

0124 Does the bombastic, entertaining, yet earnest Alex Jones speak fiction to fact? Or fact to fiction? Or both? Or neither?

0125 This look at his most recent book suggests that the terms, “fact” and “fiction”, are inadequate. Terms that are much older, yet still explicit abstractions, are preferable.

To me, the Latin terms, “ens reale” (mind-independent being) and “ens rationis” (mind dependent being), apply.

0126 I will not be the first to falsely accuse Alex Jones of being what he is not, when I say that Jones works in the vineyards of scholastic thought. He intuitively senses and exposes illusion and delusion. Plus, he strives to identify a nomenclature to describe how Klaus Schwab casts his sorcerer’s spell in an act of persuasion, just like that serpent in the third chapter of Genesis.

The scholastic world of the high middle ages (roughly 1100 to 1600 AD) rocks with controversies concerning how to distinguish (and perhaps, separate) ens reale and ens rationis. The schoolmen struggle against manipulative influences that bring these two types together, alchemically mixing them, in order to precipitate novel (mind-dependent) mind-independent beings (D). D can become the next A. Such is the nature of original sin.

0127 The Greimas square is an act of persuasion that does not fit what anyone currently imagines is an act of persuasion. Yet, Alex Jones smells it. He sniffs out a rhetorical pattern that seems credible, yet defies practical reason. This is his charism.

0128 A little philosophy goes a long way.

Indeed, this look at The Great Reset may seem to be a revelation.

Not unlike Jones’s book.

05/27/22

Looking at Andrew Kulikovsky’s Overview (2005) “The Bible and Hermeneutics” (Part 1 of 10)

0001 The overview under consideration appears in 2005 in the Journal of Creation (volume 19(3), pages 14-20).

The article is attractive because it considers affirmations and denials that appear in The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, published in 1978 in J. Evangelical Theological Society (volume 21(4), pages 289-296).

0002 The author of the article, Andrew S. Kulikovsky, earned a Bachelors of Applied Science (in Computer and Information Science) from the University of South Australia, then a Masters of Arts in Biblical Studies and Theology from Louisiana Baptist University. His Master’s thesis was on biblical theology of creation. At the time that his overview was published, he worked for his law degree at Deakin University, Melbourne Australia.

Single quotes and italics are used to group words together.

0003 Kulikovsky starts his brief overview, titled “The Bible and hermeneutics”, with the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.

0004 But, before entering that first section, I must wonder, “What is ‘hermeneutics’?”

In dictionaries, the term signifies the formal process by which an interpreter derives the author’s intended meaning.

0005 In terms of the category-based nested form, there are two actualities in hermeneutics. One actuality virtually situates the other.

The text itself_2a emerges from (and situates) the potential of the author’s intended meaning_1a in the normal context of writing_3a. An interpretation_2b virtually situates that text.

An interpretation_2b emerges from and situates the potential of the text and a hermeneutical process_1b in the normal context of proper reading_3b.

0006 The following relational structure is called a two-level interscope. Two-level interscopes are typical for sensible construction, according to A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction.

0007 The text_2a in question is the Bible, particularly Genesis 1-2.3, the Creation Story, and Genesis 2.4-11, the Primeval History.

0008 I now move to the section on biblical inerrancy.

Kulikovsky recounts articles nine and twelve of the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy. The following table does not report the complete affirmations and denials. These are in the overview. However, I hope they are close enough.

Here is a table.

0009 Even though these statements mention the contrast between hermeneutics and scientific narrative, the focus is on the contrast between true and false (Article XII) and honesty and deception (Article IX).

The Evangelical Theological Society affirms that Genesis is true. Plus, Genesis is not deceptive.

The denials reject what others may affirm. One aspect of the denial in Article XII is particularly worthy of repetition. No scientific hypothesis about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

In order to frame the denial in the most nuanced manner possible, I say, “If the content of a denial is affirmed, then that affirmation may negate the original affirmation. For this reason, the denial is really an affirmation that must be rejected, because it can be carried too far.”

0010 Of course, the affirmations and the denials of the Evangelical Theological Society proclaim that Biblical exegesis comes first, and stands before, purported scientific challenges. But, their very structure calls to mind a semiotic construction called the “Greimas Square”, which I won’t further capitalize, unless in a title. The greimas square is the topic of the next blog.

05/26/22

Looking at Andrew Kulikovsky’s Overview (2005) “The Bible and Hermeneutics” (Part 2 of 10)

0011 The greimas square concerns four bound elements (A1, A2, B1 and B2) and consists of four sets of statements (C, D, E and F).

Here is a picture.

0012 (C) A1 is the spoken word, element, phrase or topic under consideration.

(D) B1 contrasts with A1.

(E) A2 stands against, or “contradicts”, B1. A2 complements A1.

(F) B2 contrasts with A2. B2 stands against A1. B2 complements B1.

0013 The technical term, “contrast”, means, “is different than”, in the same way that a denial is different from an affirmation.

The technical term, “stands against” or “contradicts”, means “is distinct from”, in the same way that true (or correct) is distinct from true (or honest).

0014 If I turn the denials into affirmations that must be denied because they can be carried too far, then Articles IX and XII fit into a greimas square in the following manner.

Surely, B1 and B2 carry their affirmations too far, since they do not give priority to the inspired word of God.

In the following discussion, B1 and B2 will be modified into affirmations that do not go so far as to reject their corresponding affirmations, A1 and A2.

0015 I begin the first statement, C.

(D) Distortion and falsehood (B1) contrasts with inspiration. This speaks of false, as opposed to true. Somehow, the inspired word of God may be incorrect because the authors are fallen, just like the rest of us. So, even though they may think that they are describing real events, they are not.

Or, maybe the biblical authors have not risen to our modern standards. Scientism-ists would say that these authors have an ancient, incorrect, magical, not scientific, phenomena-based worldview. So, of course, if there is an inspired message, then it is locked in the distortion and falsehood of the worldviews of the ancient Near East.

(E) No, Genesis 1-11 is not deceptive (A2). “Not deceptive” stands against false (B1); in the same way that deceit contradicts incorrect. Honesty (A2) complements inspiration (A1). An inspired author is an honest one.

(F) Well, perhaps the honesty extends only to religious themes. That is to say, the inspired message is hidden in the smoke and mirrors of the worldviews of the ancient Near East (B2). In short, the inspired authors cannot be honest (A2) because the cultures of the ancient Near East are filled with evil and idolatry and deception. Consequently, the stories of Noah’s flood are as true as the flood narrative in the Epic of Gilgamesh. But, Utnapishtim’s flood is a clearly a fictional… er… deceptive account (B2 contradicts A1). Such fiction (B2) complements the incorrectness of the science of the ancient Near East (B1).

0016 In sum, the greimas square offers a relational structure that re-articulates the focal concept of Articles IX and XII, the divine inspiration of Genesis 1-11. The affirmations become more focused. The denials become more nuanced. Fallenness (B1) becomes entangled with the world of the ancient Near East (B1a). Plus, history and science, as moderns (B2) know them, do not exist in this world (B2a). Rather, the worldviews of the ancient Near East are fictions, about things that may be true, but we cannot know about such truth, because all we know is what the texts say.

05/25/22

Looking at Andrew Kulikovsky’s Overview (2005) “The Bible and Hermeneutics” (Part 3 of 10)

0017 The prior blog allows me to present a modified greimas square of articles nine and twelve, for the hermeneutics of biblical inerrancy.

This modification contains contrasts (B1a and B2a) that do not reject their respective affirmations (A1 and A2).

0018 So, what does modern science accomplish?

Modern science tells us that the worldviews of the ancient Near East are deceptive (B2a) and incorrect (B1a).

For example, one Sumerian origin myth goes like this.

In the beginning, the god of the waters above co-mingles with the god of the waters below. Later, the latter gives birth to the air god, who then separates the two parents. Similarly, the dome above the air is solid, just like the dome under our feet. Clearly, these statements are not scientific. The first is pure fiction (B2a). The second is incorrect (B1a).

Questions arise.

Is there a scientific hypothesis explaining why the origin stories of the ancient Near East are inherently flawed (hence, incorrect) (B1a)?

Is there a scientific hypothesis explaining why the origin myths of the ancient Near East veil what may be real historical events (hence, deceptive) (B2a)?

Here is another modified greimas square of articles nine and twelve, for the hermeneutics of biblical inerrancy.

This is what science accomplishes, as of 2005 AD.

0019 What does modern science not accomplish?

Modern science has no explanation for why particular mythological (B2a) and mechanical (B1a) constructions might have occupied the civilizations of the ancient Near East.

0020 Are scientists missing an important clue, such as what all the origin stories of the ancient Near East actually say?

The origin myths of the ancient Near East portray a recent creation of humans by a differentiated (not primordial) divinity (or divinities) (B2a).

Also, as noted in the e-work, Comments on David Melvin’s Essay (2010) “Divine Mediation and the Rise of Civilization”, the origin myths of the ancient Near East depict the potentiation of civilization through gifts from the gods (B1a).

0021 All this changes starting in 2012.

A new scientific hypothesis is proposed, accounting for why our current Lebenswelt is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

The proposal is stated plainly The First Singularity and Its Fairy Tale Trace and dramatized in An Archaeology of the Fall, by Razie Mah, and available at smashwords and other e-book vendors.

0022 The hypothesis of the first singularity does not reject the affirmations (A1 and A2) of the Evangelical Theological Society. Plus, the hypothesis addresses questions that modern science cannot (before 2012) wrestle with.

The first singularity explains why the myths of ancient civilizations of Mesopotamia can do not envision their own ancestry, deep in evolutionary time.

The first singularity explains why the innovations of civilization seem to just appear out of nowhere, like gifts from gods.

05/24/22

Looking at Andrew Kulikovsky’s Overview (2005) “The Bible and Hermeneutics” (Part 4 of 10)

0023 Kulikovsky’s section on biblical inerrancy opens questions of epistemology. Epistemology concerns Scripture and the problem of interpretation. Epistemology is the logos (word) of episteme (knowledge).

I have already encountered two contrasts. The first is truth versus falsehood, or correct versus incorrect. The second is truth versus deception, or honest versus deceptive.

0024 How does the talking serpent in Genesis 2:4-4 fit into this picture?

Science can prove that serpents do not speak, except, of course, for some of my old bosses and co-workers, if you catch my drift. This proof goes into B1b.

Also, the appearance of the talking serpent in the stories of Adam and Eve must be figurative, not real. But, the text depicts a real character. So, the talking serpent is a fiction… er… deception. This conjecture goes into B2b.

0025 What happens when I consider the hypothesis of the first singularity?

Well, the Genesis serpent ends up crawling on its belly. This means that it does not have hands or feet.

Also, the mythical talking serpent in Genesis misleads the naive Eve.

It does so using speech-alone talk.

0026 As it turns out, the hypothesis of the first singularity proposes that civilization is potentiated by a change in the way that humans talk, from hand-speech talk (two fully fledged ways of talking in a single language) to speech-alone talk (where hand-speech talk loses the hand component). The semiotic qualities of hand-speech and speech-alone talk are radically different. The change in semiotic qualities explains the potentiation of unconstrained social complexity.

Plus, the first culture to practice speech-alone talk is the Ubaid of southern Mesopotamia.

0027 Oh, suddenly, the story of the temptation of Eve makes more sense.

If the serpent has no hands, then it cannot practice hand-speech talk. Instead, the way the serpent talks makes it an exemplar of speech-alone talk (B1b).

This implies that the talking serpent is both figurative and real.

Plus, the talking serpent implies that speech-alone talk associates to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. After all, that tree is the creature’s hangout.

0028 What else?

Presumably, hand-speech talk, which starts with the first anatomically modern humans over 200,000 years ago, associates to the tree of life.

0029 Yes, the semiotic differences between hand-speech talk and speech-alone talk are substantial. They are so great that the speech-alone talking serpent does not represent the traditions of hand-speech talk, characteristic of the Lebenswelt that we evolved in. Instead, the serpent draws Eve into the world that God commanded her not to enter, the world-building milieu of speech-alone talk.

Oh, speech-alone talk is the defining character of our current Lebenswelt.

0030 Here is a picture of the greimas square.

Consider the sequence of blogs for January 2022, at www.raziemah.com, titled, Looking at Mark Smith’s Book (2019) “The Genesis of Good and Evil”.

05/23/22

Looking at Andrew Kulikovsky’s Overview (2005) “The Bible and Hermeneutics” (Part 5 of 10)

0031 From the last few blogs, I show that the propositions that the Evangelical Theological Society affirm and deny, in 1978, may be placed into a greimas square.

Initially, this greimas square allows me to see that modern evolutionary science, before 2005, denies the Society’s affirmations and affirms its denials. So, either the Evangelical Theological Society or evolutionary theorists are correct.

Before 2005, the greimas square, even with modifications, represents a standoff. The relational structure cannot hold, unless modern evolutionary science comes up with a new discovery, such as the hypothesis of the first singularity.

0032 With the hypothesis of the first singularity, the science-oriented stances that Christian theologians once denied for good reason (B1 and B2), may be now rendered as contrasts to affirmed theological propositions (A1 and A2).

Such a change marks a new age of understanding, hence the title in the following diagram.

0033 Here is a picture of the sensible construction of biblical Genesis 1-11.

0034 Allow me to compare this to the original diagram.

The content-level normal context changes from writing_3a, which implies that there are authors, to composing_3a, which implies that there are people who are reciting the stories of witnesses_2a, reporting on real events_1a as best they can. Scribes eventually record these recitals_2a. These texts are then assembled… or… “redacted” into the canonical text.

Thus, as affirmed by Articles IX and XII of The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, the biblical text is correct and honest_2b.

0035 Certainly, there are intended messages_1a, but these are locked within the realness of the biblical witness_1a. The history that Genesis 2:4-11 portrays shows a world rife with falsehood and deception, both of which are associated with “world building”. The intended message of the witnesses_1a concerns what is going on during the Ubaid, the Uruk and the Sumerian Dynastic archaeological periods of southern Mesopotamia.

0036 The situation-level normal context remains the same, but now reading_3b is more evocative, because a scientific notion is now entangled with the biblical text.

The hypothesis of the first singularity does not deny what the Evangelical Theological Society affirms_1b. Yet, the hypothesis contrasts with their affirmations.

0037 Now, the truth and honesty that is presumed by theological interpretation_2b, plays out against the backdrop of the “world building” in the Ubaid, Uruk and Sumerian archaeological periods of southern Mesopotamia_1b. The reader can envision Genesis 2:4-11 as an insider’s view of the emergence of civilization in the milieu of the first culture practicing speech-alone talk.

An Archaeology of the Fall

A Horror Story by Razie Mah

Tag Archives: Greimas square