Joel Watts - Latest Comments

Re: Revelation as Prophecy

Joel — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 16:15:55 -0000

Marv, I am posting my reply here as well, but please continue the convo on the other blog -

Marv, your 'wisdom' is your own, and ignores the historical setting of Scripture itself. Further, considering that the book opening by declaring itself within the genre, there is no harm in seeing it as such. His audience certainly would have. What you ignore is reason.

Your straw man arguments are rather weak. Genre not is simply denoted by the misuse of a name, although some would see that 'John' is not the Apostle John, and thus, should be excluded from the canon. Genre is the style of the work, and the goal. Further, prophecy is generally the same thing as 'revealing' or, you know, apocalypse. Both purport to reveal God's will. Further, your attempt to suggest that unless one understands Revelation according to your predetermined limits is, well, dishonest. Considering that many throughout history simply do not see your viewpoint, I would say that it best to keep your imposed limits to yourself. Reading the book subjectively has lead to much damage, such as the damage done to a reading Genesis 1 as such.

Your attempt at limiting my words is laughable. I am not sure if you know what the word 'soon' actually means, but such as in the end of the book, 'quickly' gives an effect of immediacy. Ask a preterist what soon means, if you need to.

You use distant based on what? considering that people generally haven't come to the conclusion on a date, or the fact that Revelation is connected with the other writings of the New Testament, I could argue that the Beast is modeled after Paul's imagery, sure, but more so such things as the King of Tyre and the 'ruler' that Daniel angel fought.

The passage you quoted is an supreme example of my point, actually, and excludes the idea of a 'jigsaw' puzzle thousands of years hence. Messianic Expectation, by the way, was developed not with Isaiah and others, but during the so-called intertestamentary times. Isaiah search for hope, and didn't know when it would arrive, but that doesn't mean that he thought his words were of any significance 700 years later. As a matter of fact, to think that what Isaiah said was about what was coming 700 years later is to sorely misunderstand the use of the office of the prophet and the message of Matthew.

Tell, by quoting Numbers 12.6, where do you find the idea they constitute 'riddles'? This is sad, but it demonstrates your subjective reading of Scripture as something that you want it to say and mean instead of what it actually does.

You have yet to prove that you can discourse without attack, symbolizing your faulty and very subjective position, nor the meaning of prophecy - which I notice you didn't actually return to the meaning of the word but inserted your own; and finally, that you understand the role of prophecy, which, again, are the words of the prophet who is a person sent by God to reveal God's will for that audience.

For example, Isaiah 7.14; 9.6 - Isaiah was speaking about Christ, but about the then and there of his situation. To think otherwise would be rather foolish. You can speak of your 'game' and your 'exe-cheating', which is anti-intellectualism at its finest, but until you realize the ancient use of such things as prophecy and genre, you'll never understand Scripture.

Re: Revelation as Prophecy

Marv (asphaleia) — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:08:43 -0000

Joel, thanks for linking to my blog post, even if you did misrepresent my point by using as the link text "nor should the genre be ignored." I, of course, do not "ignore" the genre of Revelation, I argue that the conventional wisdom about what the genre is is mistaken. Do you understand the difference? If you understand the difference, why would you misstate my point?

I'm quite familiar with the standard explanation of the difference between prophecy and apocalypse. I just think it is faulty on a number of counts. I don't think historical evidence supports it, and I don't find the logic behind it complelling. Of course, it's easier just to say I "ignore" the genre.

Then, of course, this very post is in fact doing that very thing, from my point of view: ignoring the genre. The genre, state in the text, is prophecy. The text states that John saw a vision and recorded it. The "genre" argument you seem to be making is that everyone back then knew the rules of the game when they read such a thing, and would interpret it in light of those rules.

I just cannot see that this actually is what took place. And I think there is a great deal of difference between:

a. Receiving a vision from the glorified Christ to give to the church and then recording and commenting on that vision.

b. Composing a work using the name of a famous person of the past, using the conceit of having received a vision, and writing about the current day as if some was predicted centuries before.

I don't know, but I can't quite see lumping those similar-looking but ultimately dissimilar works into the same genre. I take it you can.

So my argument is that we have to understand the book as describing a real vision, and John as author of the book, but not of the vision itself nor its imagery. I think this is fundamental to the correct interpretation of the book, and failure to understand this will lead to complete distortion of its contents.

This is a different thing to the suggestion either that that the genre is bbeing "ignored" or that "Many believe that ‘prophecy’ is always in the future, but I believe that this is a fallacy based on misunderstanding of what prophecy is." Still a straw man is easier to knock off than the genuine issue.

I'm not sure why you resort to multiple definitions of the word prophecy, rather than considering the text itself. Actually, I'm pretty sure why you do.

In the first place, Revelation not only proclaims itself to be prophecy, but to be predictive prophecy: "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place." I understand that is says "soon," but we also see that some of "what must soon take place" includes the Second Coming and the New Heavens and New Earth.

A large section of it consists of a type of drama played out with various characters, including "the beast." That the activities and fate of this character (Rev. 19:20) corresponds to that of the "man of lawlessness" in 2 Tim. 2:8-12, an entity clearly future in Paul, such that he is destroyed by the returning Christ, provides pretty serious evidence that this section is predictive in nature, and that distant.

You also object to the idea of the text being treated as "a secret code to be worked out by later readers." Indeed, this demonstrates the divide between:

a. a composed work employing deliberate literary imgery, such that it was intended to be understood at that time, and

b. a true vision, in which the imagery is perhaps not any clearer to John than to anyone else.

A true predictive prophecy actually is only truly understood as it is fulfulled, as 1 Pet. 1:10-12. By the way, in scouring for the definition of prophecy, did you consider this passage, which seems to connect prophecy fairly strongly with prediction? Apparently the prophets themselves found it something of a jigsaw puzzle to put together.

This is consistent with what the Scriptues themselves tell us about prophecy, that God speaks in "visions" and "dreams" (Num 12:6), which things constitute "riddles." Are there such riddles in Revelation? Rev. 13:8, concerning the name and number of the beast is presented as one. Rev. 1:20 and 17:7 present John himself receiving an explanation of the symbolism. Or maybe that's just part of the game. Read the text with the urim and thummim that you call "genre" and the nature of what is going on it radically transformed.

I will agree with you that one of us misunderstands the nature of prophecy.

Re: Thinking through Preserving Democracy: Taxes and the Welfare State, Planning vs Competition

Joel — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 13:12:47 -0000

I hope that all sides - the 45 or so that are out there - will do so. I think that he is very correct, more especially about the Rule of Law issue, now that I reflect upon it.

Not that I am suggesting another book or anything....

Re: Thinking through Preserving Democracy: Taxes and the Welfare State, Planning vs Competition

Henry Neufeld — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:05:47 -0000

I was glad to see the two of you discuss. I'm going to link back here from our Energion Publications blog again today, especially mentioning this exchange. Of course, since I'm the publisher, I obviously like your suggestion that others "pick the book up to join the debate."

Re: Thinking through Preserving Democracy: Taxes and the Welfare State, Planning vs Competition

Joel — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 10:36:10 -0000

I will make it clear in my final review, that I agree with you - as I have in these interactions - on several key areas and I would encourage you to take the chapters on Law and do a separate volume on those. People simply do not understand the value of written law nor the limited power of the Court system. Of course, never do politicians...

You know more restrict yourself privately, but the sources which you presented are a lesson in restriction. No offense is meant here, but that is a problem which you articulated in your chapter on Distortion of Language. While an argument need not be a complete presentation of all viewpoints, you criticize sound bites which in effect, your statements on such things as Card Check - as a former community organizer with a union, I reject - and your admission that you presented a short statement on Hitler to save time have become. Yes, I understand the limitations of printing a book, but in my opinion, to better present the other side of the coin, if legitimate, should have seen opposing viewpoints listed in the footnotes/endnotes.

Again, as I have stated, I think that many of the points you raise are dead on, but I do not believe that it is the Government's fault, especially since we elect said government. Instead, it is our culture which we have allowed to become saturated with ignorance of history, philosophy, and the classics, as well as apathy.

Re: Thinking through Preserving Democracy: Taxes and the Welfare State, Planning vs Competition

Elgin — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 10:26:29 -0000

There was a constant tension when writing this book over what to include and what to leave out. Most of these chapters could be entire books in and of themselves. The “chapter” on the law for example ended up being so long that it, in fact, became two chapters, other chapters in the original outline were dropped completely to keep the length down. In the end the book is still longer than what I had wanted.

As for Alter’s book, true it does not qualify the foundations of my book, it just happened to be the book I most recently finished. (Books I am currently reading are: Hitch 22 (memoir of Christopher Hitchen), The Big E (the story of the USS Enterprise during WWII), What If (counter factual military history), and Art: a New History). The foundation of this book is drawn from decades of reading, not to mention discussions and thinking. I have not restricted myself to those that agree with me, but interact with a range of sources and differing views. These do not appear directly in the book, but then it was not intended to be analysis of differing points of view, giving pro and con and reaching a conclusion.

For example you are correct that I ignored “the fact that Hitler preached against socialism and communism, with a murderous rage.” I am well aware of that argument, as I am sure you are aware of the counter argument, and thus I could have spent untold pages working thought the pros and cons of this particular debate, as indeed I have in many wonderful discussions with those who disagree. But I choose not to pursue that debate at that time. I made many such choices throughout the book.

Re: Thinking through Preserving Democracy: Taxes and the Welfare State, Planning vs Competition

Joel — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 11:34:23 -0000

Mr. Hushbeck, I fully expected you to take exceptions, however, instead of debating your points, I hope that others will instead pick the book up to join the debate. I do wish, however, that some of the points you made in this short comment were in fact in the book, which would have presented a better argument on your behalf.

Just to note, reading a book by a less than conservative doesn't qualify the foundations used in your book.

Re: Thinking through Preserving Democracy: Taxes and the Welfare State, Planning vs Competition

Elgin — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 11:05:14 -0000

Mr. Watts,
First, let me thank you for taking the time to do such an extended review of Preserving Democracy. However, and as you might expect, I do take some exception to a few of your comments.
The first point you make is a good example. My comments on unions and contract work appeared in a footnote and placed some qualifications on a statement made in the text concerning a person getting a job. The general point was that a person getting a job is like a business competing for customers. The footnote pointed out that this generalized statement was “not completely true” and gave some reasons why. The comment on unions was not a “talking point” meant to jab unions, but simply points out that unions place limits on employment. Contract work was not praised, but contrasted with unions as a sort of opposite extreme. Thus in short I was merely using the footnote to let the reader know that I realize the analogy I was using was not perfect, and I am a little puzzled as to why you would see this as a “bitterly partisan jab” when none was intended.
You go on from there to claim my “description of government workers is such a stereotype that it is off-putting.” What stereotype is this? My claim that government service is “generally not good?” I follow this claim by countering the stereotype that the service is bad because of some lack of ability among government workers, and say, or at least imply, that they are as smart and talented as non-government workers. My point here is the systems, not the workers.
It seems that you take descriptive statements, as statements of advocacy or attack. That unions place limits on the employer/employee relationship, and contract work has fewer limits, is descriptive and should not be taken as a jab at one or advocacy of the other.
Now you are somewhat incorrect that I claimed I would “remain balanced” in terms of presenting all sides of the discussion. The “balanced” here was in the context of trying to “avoid being overtly partisan.” I am attempting to present a political argument without the partisan finger pointing that so often makes such discussion so difficult. I had the impression you were seeing more partisanship than was really there. You were incorrect to assume that I base my “understanding and personal theory only on one side, without considering the source or the foundation for said source.” For example, the book I just finished reading was Jonathan Alter’s, The Promise, hardly the book a one sided conservative would read.
Here are a few other quick comments:
I focused on the Bush Tax cuts as they were the most recent. As for the current situation, I did not address it in Chapter two, because it had not happened when I wrote that chapter. I do, however, address it in chapter 10, the new chapter added to the paperback.
As for the 55 MPH speed limit, I am not sure what you think I distorted. How does the fact that there were some roads where it did not apply affect the overall point I was making? As for the states, I say that they lobbied against it for twenty years. True, in my summary I did not point out that a court challenge had been made, but how does that affect my overall point? If anything it would only strengthen it. Finally, when the law was repealed it was not that accident rates did not go up to their pre-1973 status, but that they dropped rather than increased as supporters had predicted. Thus, that the actual speed did not return to pre-73 levels is irrelevant to the point being made. (Though Montana went to “Reasonable and Prudent” during the daytime for a while).
As for your comments on Hayek and socialism, it was hard to separate the ad hominem attacks from the semantic disputes to reach any coherent argument that actually applied to what I wrote.
As for states’ rights, my statement was in the context of taxes as compared to later in the 20th century. You are correct that here and in a lot of other places, I could have gone into more detail or expanded on arguments more. I was not attempting to write a huge tome that would impress intellectuals. I was trying to write a small book that would make up for some of the gaps left by our education system that I was seeing in so many of my students. As such there is a lot that ended up on the cutting room floor so to speak.
Still I thank you for your review, and am looking forward to your comment on the later chapters.