In recent years, queries related to the Bible have been steadily rising according to Google Trends. We lament the dwindling faith in God’s inspired words, but does that mean people are less interested? How can we have an upswing in searches but a downturn in faithful response? A closer look a the data reveals some interesting answers to this question.
It doesn’t take long to think of a Biblical example of an intractable negotiation between leaders of nations. Anyone could pick out the clash between Moses and Pharaoh as a prime illustration. Our repeated showdowns over the debt ceiling draw strong parallels which can lead us to wisdom and away from foolish political theater. Unfortunately, not many come to the invective war in internet comment sections armed with real facts. So let’s start there, shall we?
Criticism of God’s word is nothing new. It was there in the beginning (Gen 3:1) and it lives on today. The ideas are always the same, just repackaged and recopied from someone else. Sometimes the tactic is simple mockery – taking a beautiful work created by someone else and flipping it onto its unbiblical head. It requires some dedication but little imagination. Case-in-point: the most popular visualization of “contradictions” from Project Reason is not much more than a re-hash of Chris Harrison’s original award-winning visualization of cross references.
When I created Mapping God’s Bloodline, I had no idea what a turning point it would be for this website. Until then, few had visited the site. Once a few influential people shared it on social media, I discovered how visualization could turn a boring, tedious subject into something people find highly engaging.
Previously only top-end software would allow students of scripture to easily find where God is called “Lamb,” “Word,” “Prince,” “Son,” “He,” “I,” etc. Timothy, the developer of Bible Analyzer, recently completed efforts to tag references like those for over 25,000 words to offer similar functionality in a low-cost program.
It’s absurd to think that some people make a conscious choice to suffer in eternal torment rather than experience the glory of Heaven. Evangelists hardly even ask whether people want to go to Heaven. Most assume everyone wants to be there and instead start with the question: “Do you think you will go to Heaven when you die?” Yet, there are people in this world who hate God to such a degree they would rather spend eternity in Hell than worship the Almighty.
In 1897, a little girl named Virginia wrote to the The Sun, a New York City newspaper, to ask if Santa Claus is real. The editor’s response to her has since become famous. As a new parent, I (like many other parents) wonder what I would tell my own child who asks a question like that. What follows is the letter I would write in reply.
Imagine someone walking up to a stranger and saying: “Hi, my name is Robert and I’d like to share with you the good news.” The stranger replies: “No, thanks. I don’t want to hear anything about Jesus today.” The evangelist replies: “Oh, no! I wasn’t talking about Jesus …I wanted to tell you about he new iPhone.” In our consumerist society, this scenario is not all that hard to imagine. In many cities it is more culturally acceptable to be an evangelist for Microsoft, Google, Apple, or Adobe than it is to evangelize the true Gospel.
The growth of Logos Bible Software in recent years has transformed their downtown community of Bellingham, Washington. With the release of Logos 5 they have transformed the nature of Bible study technology. I decided to do a thorough review of the new version because it partly fulfills the vision I have described on this blog for the past few years. Logos is doing for the Bible what Google’s Knowledge Graph does for the web: it connects words to what they represent so you can discover relevant facts more quickly.
The words of scripture create a tightly knit fabric; exciting pictures emerge when we weave them together with silicon and electrons. The field of Big Data is rapidly expanding the possibilities for quantitatively and visually analyzing text as complex and rich as that of the Bible. With it we can more easily study language structures, writing styles, or discover hidden codes.
One of the more difficult areas of big data is text mining. It is “unstructured” in the sense that it isn’t arranged in a way a computer can easily understand. Machines have a very difficult time with natural language, though major search engines and other startups are making great strides in that area. For the most part, language is analyzed according to word frequency or proximity to other words of a known type. I know of at least two practical examples in biblical studies.
First is Steven Boyd’s work in the RATE project. He presented a statistical approach to determining whether a passage is prose or poetry. Specifically, he looked at the distribution of four types of finite verbs in sections that are indisputably poetic and those which are prose. We can then take a text in which the genre is controversial (Genesis 1:1-2:3 in this case) and compare the distribution of verb forms to appropriately categorize them. Boyd’s study was limited enough that it wouldn’t be put in the big data category but the techniques would be similar with a much larger set of passages.
Another project published at openbible.info explores the “sentiment” of every biblical event. In basic terms, a program calculates the frequency of words generally considered to convey a positive sentiment vs. those that are more negative. This approach is more useful to marketers studying customer reaction to their brand than serious biblical analysis but I do think it’s a good starting point and will prove more useful as language processing algorithms become more advanced and widespread.
A far more well-known and controversial field is that of Bible codes. To even approach a debate on the significance or meaning of messages some claim God encrypted in the Bible, we must have good data to back it up – and lots of it. Consider a well-known example: by taking every 50 letters of either Genesis or Exodus, it spells out the word “Torah.” To argue for or against the notion that this is evidence of divine cryptography, we must know how likely it is we’ll find the same phenomenon elsewhere. That means gathering writings in the same language from the same time period as well as books from other languages and periods. In other words, big data.
Books, software, and videos abound with claims of similar discoveries from simple to more complex and unlikely phrases. I have not gone through the statistical rigor of verifying or refuting the claims myself, but some seem quite compelling. In any case, newer technologies and mathematical discoveries are sure to shed new light on this subject as time passes.
Fresh possibilities abound, from authorship analysis to readability, n-grams and much more. It is an exciting time to be involved in big data programming and visualization. It won’t answer questions about where we come from, why we’re here, or where we’re going any better than God’s words have already spoken, but it does have some potential to expand our understanding of those words. In what ways do you think big data could aid Bible studies?
I love exploring new technologies, especially the ones still in “startup mode.” Sure, I like the newness of it, but they also give me ideas that help some of my projects. Lately I’ve been beta testing a technology that has led me to expand my thoughts on how to codify the conversations among biblical characters. As an added bonus, I learned of it through a former roommate of mine who is now the lead developer. That means I not only get to play with a new toy, I also get to help out an old friend.
One of their ideas is to re-imagine the way people navigate online discussions. I’ll spare the details for now; just know that my experience has shown this encourages conversations to go on and on with multiple participants. However, it shares a limitation common to almost all such tools: you can only directly reply to one person at a time. The best workaround I’ve seen for this is to “mention” other people so they’ll get a notification of your message even if they aren’t in a “To:” box.
These limitations don’t exist in real-life group conversations. Since I mentioned my goal of defining the conversational structure of biblical people, consider an example in that context. Jesus is speaking with his disciples. One of them raises a question or makes a statement that requires a response from their teacher. Does he respond only to one person? He might, but often he will address the group. Now, complicate it further. A council is arguing theology among themselves. Jesus steps into their conversation, addressing the group to answer multiple questions with one statement. It’s not in direct reply to a single person or point.
Do you see that this could not take place using today’s online discussion tools? True, replies can be seen by the world, but you must address your reply to a specific statement made by a particular person. Incredibly, the oldest communication technology on the internet is the one that allows you the most freedom in choosing intended recipients: e-mail! I routinely get a message that requires a reply and I choose to send it to more people than were originally included. Conversely, I may get a mass e-mail but only respond to the sender. Or, I may send it on to a completely new person. I can’t do that as easily or effectively on Facebook, Twitter, Disqus, etc. Perhaps that’s one reason that e-mail just won’t die.
I can envision scenarios where tools that overcome those boundaries may improve upon real-life exchanges. Maybe someone said something I really want to respond to but can’t because of an interruption. By the time I find a break in the conversation, we’re on a different subject. To speak what has been in my head that whole time would invite awkward stares. To go back in time to an earlier point in a written dialogue might not be so awkward and I don’t have to worry about interruptions. Everyone gets a turn to speak. On second thought, maybe that’s not an improvement after all…
If we can develop computer technologies which allow for the complexities of real-life conversations (startup buddy, I’m talking to YOU!) then I may find a better way to capture biblical exchanges in an electronic database. Doing so may help us better understand the whole arc of the Bible which can help us better understand ourselves. Let’s have a conversation about that some time. Find me on Google+ or in the comment section below.
The Cross Reference Index has been rebuilt due to some errors leading to irrelevant connections found by a studious reader. This data now only includes references from the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge and excludes other cross reference sources.
This and all other files included in MetaV can be downloaded here.
I can recall two experiences, both of which occurred in a single afternoon, which taught me more about handling tough situations than anything else I remember. It was during an Air Force training exercise in Japan. The scenario was to repair a damaged runway so (make-believe) fighter jets could land. My job was to keep track of what was happening and give updates to our commander while being interrupted by threats of chemical attacks, insurgent strikes, and whatever else the training group could invent to make things more difficult.
For one of my half-hourly updates, I changed the completion time estimate by a large margin. Our commander immediately called to chew me out for being inconsistent, wishy-washy. How could he trust my promise if I didn’t even trust myself? A lot of pretend dollars and missions were at stake. If we were off by even 30 seconds, the fictitious planes couldn’t land and we would fail the training exercise. It was the only time other than at the Air Force Academy I was severely scolded by a superior officer. Lesson learned: consistency builds trust.
Later in the afternoon, things got more intense. We had planes that needed to land within the hour – damaged, low on fuel – either they were going to land safely or crash when they hit an incomplete or sub-par repair. The commander called me again: “Can we land these planes in time?” In this scenario, the fighters were expected to arrive within a minute or two of my estimate. We had no room for error. None. I told him yes, we’ll get it done. After I hung up the phone, the highest-ranking sergeant muttered: “That’s balls.”
The well-seasoned folks within earshot had done this many times before. I was barely 22 years old. They knew the consequences we’d face if I was wrong. Our ability to get this right in training reflected our ability to get it right for real on our upcoming deployment to Iraq. They also knew how much work was left. If we hadn’t compacted the soil enough, gotten it smooth enough, secured the matting well enough…bad things could happen. If my “yes” turned out to be wrong, that earlier rebuke from the commander wouldn’t be the one I remembered. The next one would be far worse.
I didn’t say we could do it because I was a cocky Academy grad (which I was back then). I didn’t say it because I was scared of telling my boss “no.” I did it because I knew the guys out there could hustle and do it right the first time, on time. I trusted their experience, ability, and motivation. I was right. They got it done. The planes landed (on paper) as scheduled and the practice repair met all standards. The guys I was with that day treated me a little differently from then on. Lesson two: confidence earns respect.
These are very basic things you learn in Leadership 101. I am reminded of those lessons often as I see more and more failures of leadership in our country. It may be a President voicing inconsistent foreign policy, a corporate executive who won’t make a decision for fear of personal ruin, or a father sitting on the couch while his family is in spiritual decline. Yet, hope remains for a better day.
I have confidence that our trials are temporary because I believe in a God who is eternally consistent. He keeps his promises. He is worthy not just of respect but of worship. He has more than earned trust; his character demands complete faith.
This is the perspective I hope to keep in focus as our sin-cursed world “groans and travails” in ever-increasing frequency (Rom 8:22) until God fulfills his promise to restore creation to its original perfection (Rev 21-22). Remember that when you see wars breaking out in the Middle east, corrupt executives shoved into federal prison, or endure the daily struggles of a dysfunctional family. Man’s leadership often fails. God’s lordship never will.
Today, a popular church tech blog, ChurchMag, listed my site as number 14 on their 2012 list of “Top 20” blogs in that class based on website stats, social media networks, and Google PageRank. Newcomers here may be wondering how this site fits in among that list since most of my posts are not focused on gadgets, social media, or apps designed to help your ministry. So, here’s a quick introduction to SoulLiberty.com and why I think it belongs in the “tech” category.
I tend to be a “power user” or even a creator of technology meant to help spread the knowledge of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I share ideas on a very wide range of topics of concern to Christians. I have covered abortion, science, design, prophecy, data visualizations galore, and created a handful of simple apps. My communication style is mainly oriented toward demonstrating new concepts instead of discussing them. For instance, I could have written a post on how useful I thought Wolfram|Alpha could be and linked to a couple of things there. But, I didn’t. I wrote on the size of the New Jerusalem and embedded a Wolfram|Alpha widget that lets you type the size of one person’s “house” and let it tell you how many of those “houses” could fit in that city.
Most of the time the “tech” part of this site is subtle like that. The main exception is MetaV, my ever-expanding project to collect, visualize, and communicate data on biblical people, places, and periods of time. Some of the visualizations using the data in MetaV are featured on the home page. Others can be found under “Tools.”
Years ago when I started this site, I wrote this about the internet:
As we marvel at the technological achievements of our time, God finds a new way every day to remind me that the inventors of this virtual universe are worthy only to worship at the feet of the Creator of the actual universe.
I still feel that way all the time (you can read more on the “About” page). My hope is that readers would come to see things that way, too, but also recognize the rich opportunities before us. I want to make the most of the achievements in the Information Age to evangelize a lost world and train up disciples that grow in grace and the knowledge of the truth. If you’re a new reader or just someone I haven’t heard from before who feels the same way, I’d love to hear from you in the comments below or on Google+.
Multiple news outlets have broken the story of a project which puts to rest a major argument supporting Darwinist ideology. It’s called the ENCODE (Encyclopedia of DNA Elements) project , described as a “Google Maps for the Human Genome.” NPR reports some initial conclusions and their implications:
For decades, scientists thought that most of our genetic code was essentially useless — basically filler between our genes. Only a tiny fraction — the part that has genes in it — really mattered, according to this thinking. […] What has been called junk DNA is actually teeming with an intricate web of molecular switches that play crucial roles in regulating genes. The ENCODE project scientists found at least 4 million of these regulatory regions so far.
This is fantastic research. I do wish scientists had never called any of it “Junk DNA.” That idea was born out of the evolutionary paradigm that dismissed it as “useless filler,” like the failed “vestigial organ” arguments of yesteryear. Ideas like that hold back scientific progress.
Looking at it from the perspective that this code is here for a reason, placed there by an intelligent designer, curiosity is sparked: “What’s it here for?” “What does it do?” “Let’s find out!” No, the most important concept in biology is not evolution. It is the notion that biological structures have a function and their purpose can be discovered through scientific research. Evolution News has a breakdown of this story which confirmations intelligent design predictions.
This takes away nearly all the genetic breathing room anyone had left to insert mythologies about the development of life on Earth. The new findings are a major upheaval and I expect there will be more information going “mainstream” in the coming weeks. Are you as excited as I am?
For more information on this project, see the video below and Nature‘s website.