Bob and I are tackling scripture. Here is Bob's latest in Conversations with Bob!
Just so ya'll know I sent an email to Jack Rogers this morning thanking him for all I learned from him. Much of what I write, particularly about the authority and interpretation of Scripture I learned from Jack.
I also gathered my courage and asked him for a picture from his days at Fuller to see just how much hair he had then!
This looks like a fun exegetical game. I'll play.
My response to your first two texts is rather easy. One of the basic rules of exegesis is that we interpret Scripture by Scripture. See Presbyterian Understanding and Use of Holy Scripture. I have I've provided a hyperlink so you can download the publication in PDF format. Also see Jack Roger's books, Reading the Bible and the Confessions: The Presbyterian Way and the section on Biblical interpretation in Jesus, the Bible, And Homosexuality: Explode the Myths, Heal the Church. If you want to go whole hog and read about the history of interpretation see Rogers' and McKim's book: Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach. All are available at Amazon.
What you have done by taking passages out of context is make the same mistake the Old Princeton Scholastics made. Because they believed Scripture was propositional truth they read each sentence as a propositional truth statement separate from the rest of the Bible. This is a mistaken understanding of how to interpret Scripture.And I know you are playing devil's advocate so I'm sure you do not interpret Scripture in this manner.
As to the first text, what do we read about women being silent and subordinate in other places? Let's see: the women at the tomb were told to tell the other disciples about the resurrection.No command to silence here. No subordination there. In the same letter Paul says that women pray and prophesy in worship are to cover their heads. (1 Cor. 11:1-16) So women are not to be silent but for some reason have to cover their heads because of the angels. Very curious argument but clearly women can speak in worship, praying and prophesying. If you want to talk about this very strange passage in another post we can. So what shall we make of this passage? We begin with the reason Paul wrote his letters. Paul dealt with problems in particular churches. Some of the problems aren't even explained. Look at Phil. 4:2-3. Paul tells Euodia and Synteche to agree in the Lord. We don't know what they disagreed about. We know there was a problem but we don't know what it was.
Many scholars to day see I Cor. 14:33-36 as a particular problem in the Corinthian church. It may have been that, since women in general were not educated then, (at least in Jewish homes), that women were asking their husbands to explain things to them in worship. So Paul suggests that they ask their questions at home. One scholar, (who I think is really reaching for it), says that in certain mystery cults it was the task of women to make a certain ululating noise as part of worship, that they carried this behavior over into Christian worship and Paul was telling them to cut it out. In any case we don't know what was going on in worship that Paul told the women to be silent but since other Biblical texts suggest that women are not to be silent, including a text from Paul, we can put this one in the local problem category.
Finally, as to the subordination question, subordination was a result of sin, not creation. (See Gen. 3:16). If Paul meant that women were to be subordinate in all things, (and I don't think he did, given the grammatical construction of Ephesians 5:21-33) it must be interpreted in relation to the rest of Scripture, which says the subjection of women was a result of sin and male sin at that. But it is important that we see this particular bit of exegesis in relation to the history of exegesis. Changes in culture allow us to see things in Scripture that we would not see if cultural change didn't happen. The rise of women out of subordinate roles allowed scholars to see what their cultural blinders did not allow them to see previously. There is a clear interaction between culture and the very questions we ask of Scripture. One of the real problems the church has to contend with is to evaluate how culture affects our reading and interpretation of Scripture and whether the culture pushes us toward false interpretation.
Slavery: Again, if we hear the text in relation to the whole Bible, the culture of the day and eschatological expectations we hear a different message. The Torah actually was an improvement over the surrounding cultures when it came to slavery. Jews who sold themselves into slavery could be redeemed by relatives and had to be released in the year of Jubilee. And while non-Jewish slaves were slaves for life, there were strict laws in the Torah concerning their treatment. There is an underlying theme in the Old Testament and particularly in the Torah reminding the people of Israel about their slavery in Egypt as a background for both their relationship with God and how they are to treat slaves.
The New Testament is more complicated. You chose a passage that while part of a list of commands to different groups of people in the Church, is not part of a household list, a tradition in the Greco/Roman world. In other texts you can see more balance. Ephesians 6:5-9 gives balance, commands to both slaves and masters. Philemon points out that slaves and masters are brothers in Christ. The trajectory of the New Testament is toward the destruction of the system of slavery except the eschatological expectations do not look towards release of slaves on earth. Since 1st Century Christians expected Jesus to return in their lifetimes they didn't go out and try to end slavery in the Roman world.
The trial of Jesus before Pilate in Matthew: I'm going to begin this interpretation is a different manner but will return to the basic pattern I've used in the previous two questions. First let's consider the scene. The Jewish leadership has brought Jesus to Pilate for trial, hoping Pilate will put Jesus to death. The first critical question is who is the crowd? In the past many have said that the crowd is the same crowd that accompanied Jesus into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday. Some recent scholars have disagreed with this. They have said that this is most probably a crowd of supporters of the Jewish leadership. Besides the word crowd can't mean a whole lot of people because Pilate's courtyard just wasn't that big. This was a small crowd. So first question for interpretation: did the crowd speak for all Jews or only for themselves? The Church over the years concluded that the crowd spoke for all Jews and therefore persecuted Jews as Christ killers. Was this Matthew's intention? I think not. If, as most scholars believe, Matthew spoke to a Jewish Christian community and maybe also to the wider Jewish community why would he say that all Jews were condemned by the words of the crowd. I suggest that, assuming this is an accurate transcription of what happened at the trial before Pilate that only those in the crowd who shouted out 'His blood be on us and on our children!' could be considered claiming the blame for Jesus' death for themselves.
Second, we need to consider the text within the context of the time of the final editing. Contrary to some who have emailed me in the past week, I think Matthew was put in its final form in the '80's AD. This would be a time in which Jews were on the outs with Rome because of the rebellion and Christians to avoid persecution wanted to separate themselves from the Jews. Matthew makes Pilate look like he's not really responsible for Jesus' death, even though he is wishy washy, which was not really Pilate's character at all, and put the blame on the Jewish leadership. You can see a different use of the Roman card which did not blame Jews in Paul's use of his Roman citizenship.
Now, as to interpreting Scripture by Scripture: Paul in Romans 9-11 says that the Church is engrafted into the people of God which is Israel. The long history of the bitterness between Jews and Christians and Christian persecution of Jews ignores this vital point. We claim that God has made us part of the people of God. Contrary to much theology over the centuries, we do not replace Israel as the people of God; we are added to the people of God.
Finally the passage from Joshua: Interesting choice of passages. Personally I would have chosen the Jericho story as it includes both action by God and God's command to kill of all men, women and children except for Rahab and her family.
Anyway, the passage you chose: the theology behind Holy War in Joshua is that the people in had so sinned against God that the land was vomiting them out. God's command had a two fold purpose: to destroy the Canaanite population and so punish them and to provide the Israelites with a land that would not be inhabited by the Canaanites and the other peoples in the land so that they would not be tempted to commit idolatry because of the influence of the people left in the land. Notice the Israelites were held to the same standard, indeed stricter standards and ultimately, according to the Deuternomic editor, both Israel and Judah were conquered as punishment. and Babylon were used as God's instruments for punishment just as the Israelites were used as God's instruments for punishment. The underlying assumption is that God acts in history in part by controlling international politics.
But the real underlying question is: did God actually command Holy War and the killing of all people? Did God participate in the killing of the people of to help the Israelites conquer the whole land? We modern people are horrified by such an image of God. And we are not the first. One of the arguments of the Gnostics was that the God of the Old Testament was evil because of his command to kill all the people of Canaan. (Yes I know Gnosticism is much more complicated but let's stick to the topic) Early Christian exegetes used "spiritual" explanations of this and similar passages to argue that God was a God of love and that a literal interpretation was the wrong way to understand the meaning of the passage. See, for example, Origen.
In the historical context of early Israel and in the exilic time of the editing of such material the basic assumption of people was that when peoples fought their gods fought too. The stronger god won and the people of the stronger god won. This was a critical issue in the exilic period. How could God, the only real God, be defeated by the gods of the Assyrians and Babylonians? This forced a whole new theological theme that said that God controlled the Assyrians and Babylonians and that God was punishing Israel and Judah for their sins. You see this theology not only in the Deuteronomic materials but also in 1 and to Chronicles and in Isaiah. My point in all of this is that the early Israelites and the exilic editors had no problem with the idea that God fought alongside Israel and even killed the enemies. In fact there is a progression, I think, in Judges that says God used smaller and smaller groups of Israelites to defeat the enemies of Israel until we get down to one man, Samson. And then in 1 Samuel God defeats the Philistines and recovers the Ark of the Covenant with no human help at all. So the theology of the day said Holy War was God's way and God fought on the side of Israel.
Once again we need to look at the trajectory of Scripture or progressive revelation. Ultimately we find Jesus teaching pacifism and the love of enemies. God didn't' tell the whole story of what God wanted all at once. From one perspective we could say that God revealed more and more of God's self over time until we see the full revelation of God in Jesus. From another perspective we could say that the ancient Israelites got it wrong.
The underlying question that I have not addressed is did God really want to provide a land for the Israelites and kick the kill the current occupants of the land. This certainly seems to be a central Old Testament theme that begins in Genesis and continues through Joshua. God promised Abraham descendants and land. The descendants multiplied in Egypt and then attacked Canaan. How could God give the land to the Israelites without displacing the Canaanites? And what was the message of the exilic editors in making this an important theme? I think it ties in with the theme of Israel being the chosen people of God. If Israel was chosen and if God made promises including land then the occupation of the land had to happen.
I am personally very uncomfortable with this theme. But it is a theme that leads us ultimately to Jesus. It does raise all kinds of questions like does God change? Does God use one method to get what God wants at one time and another at another time? Does God actually want to kill off whole nations of people? And what ethical position shall we take today? As you point out, does God still want us to kill off the people we see as enemies of God? I think the last question can and should be answered with progressive revelation: Jesus calls us to behave differently.
Honestly, I hate this section of the Bible but cannot see how to separate if from the theme of God's choice of Israel and the purpose of Israel as a light to the nations. I have to say I don't see how Holy War can be a light to the nations. But could Israel have been Israel without land? I wish I could just say it wasn't God's intention, that the people of Israel put their own wants in the mouth of God. And I might say that if it were not for the connection to the other important themes in the Old Testament. I think I answered the first three questions rather well. The last answer is a confusing mess. I don't want that passage to be the Word of God but I don't know how to separate it from passages that I believe are the Word of God.
So tell me what you think John!
I appreciate your work here, though I've always disliked the "interpret scripture with scripture" party-line. It is circular and unreasonable. It is like saying "judge if one wall in a house is straight by comparing it against other walls in the same house".


Fellow slingsters, has anybody done research on this? Leather bootlaces are about 1/8"square. Two of these 32" long will present about 8 square inches of flat frontal area to the airstream generated on sling spin-up. Add frontal area of the pocket and projectile to this, and we may be looking at a huge impediment to launch speed of the projectile when "fat" cords and a large sling pocket is used.
Roman glandes were football shaped, which meant smaller pockets were needed per ounce of projectile weight. I'll bet if we could find a well preserved Roman army sling, we'd be surprised by the tiny pocket, plus very long and very skinny cords used.
Modern "fat-corded" slings may be crude rock-lobbers by comparison.
I have been thinking about this some myself, of late.
Obviously, this smaller the cord and pouch, the faster we can sling. What is the limit, though? Is the size of pouch limited in smallness by the type of projectile? Can we get by with a small pouch for general slinging where we can't know the size of stone until we pick it up? Can we get a very thin cord to NOT tangle up after the throw or when being carried?
I went from 1/8"square leather bootlace cords to braided dacron fishline about 1/32"round. The thin bare fishline was hard on the fingers, so I put a 4.5" bootlace "handpiece" on the end of each cord. Length from center of pocket to toggle was 38" on both versions. Pocket size is 6" x 1.5", but with small slits in the leather to let it hold the ammo well in spite of being pretty narrow.
1/ Swinging a golfball (which is pretty light ammo at just 1.5oz) had a lot better feel in the fishline version. It didnt feel like I had to drag the sling around to make it spin, ....which was the feel I had swinging a golfball in the bootlace version.
2/ The fishline version is absolutely silent. NO cord whistle.
3/ Just "letting fly", I'd say the fishline version had maybe 1/4 to 1/3 again more range.
4/ String tangling was not a particular problem in use. However, I definitely will wind the sling on a spool for storage.
FYI, the dacron is pretty slippery, so I painted all knots with clear fingernail polish to keep them from slipping.
Any other experiences/experiments to report on???
HEEEE HAAAAAAAA! I've been hoping someone would try this sort of thing out. My idea was using very thin steel cable with a larger section of larger material at the end for comfort on the fingers. The smallest pouch would probably be split. With these sort of sling upgrades, someone on here, probably Jurek, could beat the world record on distance. I believe it. 1/4 to 1/3 extension in range is a big extension! Whipmaking has taught me how important air friction is. A lead gland in a sling like that, will go forever!
How about plating 3 or 4 strands of spider wire, the kevlar fishing line, into the cords? It would still be very small in diameter, but rather strong. Attach these to a small pouch and viola, maybe this is it.
Durring the first throw of the glande I had a false feeling that this sling didn't give a pretty enough power, it was too quiet. No snap and only the gentle swish of the cords. I also tried this sling wih stones and I found they go markedly further than ones throwed by my previous slings designed for various stones.
The 3.5 mm diameter of the used cords seems to be similar to mgreenfield's bootlaces. I wonder what a distance improvment I will get if I maximally reduce my sling. The 1/4 or 1/3 improvment would be fantastic! I have fired about 4 kg of lead until now. All these shots was observed by hidden persons, and now I'm sure that I can exceed 500m distance constantly.
I know such numbers could cause scepticism or even distrust of some people, although I have decided to publish them here because just you guys caused the rebirth of my slingin passion and gave me a lot useful information.
It is not the distance you are slinging that makes us suspicious. We americans just have a natural dislike of "hidden persons". Make him come out where we can see what he is doing and we will be more comfortable.
As for people doing big things... Well, americans are used to stories of big things. Our history is full of them. We might make you an honorary citizen if you pull off the record. And if we can't make you an american citizen, I sure Texas will take you regardless. Texans just love bigger than life stuff like slinging 1,600 ft.
Cord material I used is a single strand of 40lb test braided dacron icefishing line. It's very limp & flexible. The earlier-used leather bootlaces were also pretty flexible. How does a sling perform when you use stiffer materials for cords? Seems like it could be a problem.
2/ Spinning a very long sling, .....each cord 6-7ft or more.
3/ Each cord of fine stainless wire maybe. Here's where the concern with cord stiffness comes in.
5/ In a smooth pocket just barely large enough to control the glande.
Anybody going to give it a try???
When I was writing "hidden persons" I meant the observers who was hidden behind the shelter close the expected landing zone of the glandes. I mentined in my previous posts that observers was my son or my wife. If you want I will send to you our family photo Consider that I'm not anonymous here. I corespond with guy from my country, who has found me just through this forum. Probably my poor English is guilty of your incomprehension. But I hope this forum is open for slinging fans from all world and everyone who want to share own experiences is welcomed. I like this place because it is the best forum about the slinging which I know. I'm slinger like you and the others here and I tried to bring in some share. The slinging passion is the only reason of my stay here, believe me. For me nationality of the others here is not so very important as it what they say and think.
And if we can't make you an american citizen, I sure Texas will take you regardless.
The thin stainless wire is the best due to an air drag but for me it has a big fault. It is dangerous for the slinger. In the summer I remember when I was slinging with the long-leather-cords sling the release cord whipped my left naked forearm, so it was a bit sore and red. I imagine how the long, sharp, heavy and quick cord could sting.
I don't know sure but I suppose that too stiff and heavy release cord could impede opening the pouch.
Wow, I've been reading your posts about your range achievements! I knew you could do it!! AWESOME!! I'm so excited.
Don't worry about what Jeff said, it was just American humor. I think you are the next world record holder with the sling! We're all excited and displaying our pleasure. Heeeeeee Haaaaaaa! Man, you're making 500! You'll beat it easy when you fine tune things.
As for making a highly aerodynamic sling. I was thinking about it today. I've never heard of spider wire, but the very thin, maybe 1/32"- about 1,5mm steel cable, is very strong and flexible. Infact if it was too flexible the cords would tangle. Which is what I fear could happen with fishing line. I haven't experimented, but I think a well made sling with the steel cable wouldn't be dangerous and would work really well.
I've been reading about other topics too, but I'll reply here. I don't think that slight dimples on the surface of the glandes will affect the distance that much, but when every inch counts, I'd make those things as smooth as possible. Watch out for lead poisoning though. That stuff isn't good for you.
Consider, just consider, that the last world record was made with a 2.5oz "dart." Does that mean that the guy put fins on it and a point? To me that seems like it would be a bad idea, but if anyone wants to give it a try, it's an idea. I believe just plain roundish glands will be best, but I don't want to discount anything.
Jurek, I'm interested in what your new sling for glands looks like. If you have time, take some pictures and post them. And the glands too!
So when you sling for distance, you always use a 47" sling?
I don't want you to just beat the world record. Wouldn't it be awesome to demolish it?!
The pouch or cradle aerodynamics is another big factor. It is traveling the fastest of any part of the sling and thus is very important. Any excess little area of leather or whatever, that isn't necessary, should be removed.
I'm sure there are lots of ways to fine tune it, but if we really want to get radical, we could maybe drop it altogether. In otherwords, make it out of two pieces of steel cable that overlap. (in appearance like the Balearic slings but much smaller) But how would this grip the glandes? Cut grooves into the glandes at two places, like the stripes on a football. The cable could catch on the two grooves. Now that's getting efficient! Obviously such glandes would be a little more time consuming to manufacture, but only a few would have to be made and it would be pretty simple to get a small round file and carve the grooves into such soft metal as lead. This isn't regular slinging, this is the world record, and anything helps.
Can you imagine what you could do with such a sling! That's prime efficiency! Space age slinging!
Sorry that my humor was so obscure. I fully understood your english, and who your observers are. I was just pulling your leg a little, as we say. I am feverishly nationalistic and rabidly American, but not the least bit concerned about the nationalities of my friends here at Slinging.org. You are all great guys!!!!!!!!!!!
Check out your local Wal-Mart or fishing store for spider wire. It is very thin, plaited kevlar (I think) fishing line. 50 lb test line is the same diameter as 12 lb monofilament, I believe.
As for thin lines. I believe we may have also overlooked something here that is very important. Stretch in the cords. This is probably as important as the size reduction below 1/8". All my platited cords have some stretch and this is just an energy waster. I believe the spider wire would be worth a try due to its low stretch. Less stretch is probably due some of the credit for mgreenfield's better slinging. Jurek is also using some low stretch cordage, I think.
On the subject of a record. I believe that there should be some reasonable limits set for the attempt.
1) Sling of max length equal to say 48". This should be a sling that could reasonably be expected to be used for hunting, warfare, etc. I don't think it would be good to allow a sling specially made for the record attempt. This precident is found in other sports, I think.
2) The attempt should be made on level ground from the ground, not a platform. This extends the throw if only a little, but again makes for a condition prepared especially for the attempt.
3) Limiting the projectile should be done carefully. I don't like the "dart" concept as this is an unnatural "stone" shape or object. The bi-conical glande, or any round object (rock, ceramic, golf ball) would be o.k. For that matter, an apple or canteloupe would be o.k. I will throw most anything I can get to stay in the pouch, but a "dart" just does not seem right.
jeff <>< who thinks Jurek o.k.
Great thanks! I like your post. I haven't time to write too much in this year. So I put quickly only a few pictures.
There are my new sling (which is far to the optimal one) and the patterns for last my mold. I have the CIS scaner which is not good for 3-D stuff, so the pictures of the patterns are poor quality and a bit deformed.
In the last tests I set up the sling at 50".
See you guys in the New Year. Happy New Year!
Very nice design. I thought it might look something like that. I like the way you doubled the leather on the ends of the pouch. That design looks efficient and very nice.
I made an ugly looking, 45" sling with 1/32" steel cable today, after work. Didn't take long. In the picture you can see the grooves I carved into the gland. The cable fits in the grooves. This thing is so fast! It's too fast for my arm. I can't move my arm fast enough to keep up with it. I can't experiment with range because I don't have the place, but I can experiment with power. And it is powerful!!
The cable tends to kink just a little bit if you don't treat it nice, but what I like about it, is it's stiff enough to not tangle. And it's tuff enough to not wear out or break. I bet there is higher quality cable that would do better. The filaments would have to be more fine than these.
The drag on the sling is so small, it feels weird to use. I wish I had a place to experiment with range! It's incredibly powerful.
Speaking of elasticity, it has none. I propose this type of sling to you as an idea for you to try out if you're interested. I think it will improve your range further with lead glandes than a more traditional design. It's ugly, but it's as aerodynamic and efficient as can be.
Great idea, I'm interested in, of course! Only still cables, no pouch. It seems there is impossible to find out somethig much more aerodynamic regarding to a sling. I imagine how it will be whisking! I must give it a try. The grooves are no problem because of they could be made on the patterns (models for molds).
Ben, it would be good to use stainless steel wire 7x19. This kind of it is pretty and flexible. The smallest diameter which I know is 2 mm, maybe it is possible to find a thiner one, but 2 mm still seems ok. In your newest sling the endings are very nice, I think it is your plaiting.
"Recently, another sling enthusiast on the net quoted the following: "World record 2.25oz lead weight 477 meters!! (US), 8oz stone, 375 yards (British)". This is more like the ranges quoted for ancient warriors. The American record for the lead bullet used a bullet of typical ancient weight, but the British stone record used a remarkably heavy stone which surprises me. I do not know any of the details regarding these records."
I suppose he speak about the same record which Ben mentioned, the distance is compatible but the weight is a bit different. If Lloyd had a reliable information, it looks like the lead glandes were used then.
Hmmm. Lots of thinking huh. I got the distance record out of a Guiness book I found at our local California University. I've seen the other record in an older Guiness book I used to own. I'm not sure if I still have it. If you want me to look, I'll look tomorrow. My memory is a 7oz stone and around 375 yards. 372 comes to mind, but I could be just pulling rabbits out of hat. I think Lloyd's records are the same ones we are talking about. I don't know much about cable or wire, or spider wire, or any of it. If anyone has any ideas, try them. It works good, I can tell you that. I had a bit of difficulty getting used to positioning the wires in the grooves, it would have been helpful if they were deeper. But otherwise it worked great. Very powerful!
Infact, this sling is 45" but if you want me to send it to you Jurek, or make you a 50" sling, I will. I'll send it to you for free, just give me your address. I don't need it, I'm just experimenting because I'm excited about your record attempt! Or you can make one yourself. I'm happy to be a part of this in any way. I remember my awe when I first read the world record years ago. I was especially in disbelief about the older record though. 7 or 8oz is a very large stone?!! Why would he not use a smaller one? It didn't seem right to me but it's recorded. Maybe he was a very big man, and the bigger stone helped his sling to overcome the air friction? Anyway, I ought to look into seeing if there is a higher quality steel cable and, attachments then the ones I'm using. Or some other material like the stainless steel wire, or the spiderwire, you guys are talking about. I'm pretty busy with other things right now, but I'll help in any way I can. If anyone can think of another good material, speak up.
Lawn edger cord comes to mind. But it may be too coiled and not straighten out. It might also be too stiff and thick.