Daily Verse | Isaiah 7:9
“‘If you do not stand firm in your faith, you will not stand at all.'”
Monday’s Reading: Isaiah 9-12
Happy Monday and welcome to the latest edition of magnificent opinion, bloviation, bluster, pontification, rant and harangue (that may or may not be accurately informed) for your edification. Feel free to interact, discuss, debate, talk about, jaw over, bandy and bat around with each other in the comment section what you think as you contemplate what is expressed in this fine establishment.
While we were gone a few weeks ago, we stopped in one of our favorite furniture outlet stores in Tazewell, Tennessee and purchased a new couch and chair set for our small sitting room. We, of course, couldn’t take the pieces with us, so I had to plan on driving back to pick them up. But the prices are so greatly discounted that even the cost of renting a trailer and driving down and back still makes it well worth it.
This past weekend I made that trip. As the guys were loading the trailer with our new furnishings, I browsed a bookcase on the back wall that had few dozen old books on it.
Now, before I tell you more, I need to take a moment to explain to you why I did that.
I love books. I am a book fiend. I caught the book bug early in my life and have been a reader ever since. I prefer a physical book rather than an eReader because I can write in the margins, highlight, flip easily between pages and chapters, and have three or four open at a time so I can compare them when I’m studying or researching. I read mostly American history, biographies, social sciences and political philosophy, along with political thrillers. I also have a theological library that includes books like systematic theologies, apologetics, Greek and Hebrew resources, bible commentaries, theological dictionaries and popular level Christian books.
But I also love old books. I love them because it’s a tie back to a time when our country took education and literature seriously. Have you ever reviewed an old school primer for children and what they were expected to learn? Here’s one published in 1839 called The Girl’s Reading-Book; in Prose and Poetry. For Schools. On page 12, one paragraph reads:
“If defects in intellectual education lead to such evils,—defects in the education of the heart are still more deplorable. Look at the child whose moral principles have been neglected. Has he a regard for truth? Does he shrink at dishonesty? Is his conscience quick to warn him of a wrong motive? Does he obey his parents? Does he love his teachers? Is he anxious to understand and keep the law of God?”
Keep in mind that this is not a book written for Christian schools; it was written for public schools.
“Keep the law of God”? That’s a far cry from the stultiloquence that passes for education today. Can you imagine this being written today, much less served up in public schools? Of course not. This approach to education is gone and the only way to remember or study it is to preserve books like it.
That’s what I do in my own way, and why I took a moment to look through the books in the furniture store.
Back to the story. As I’m browsing, I come across a volume of Webster’s Secondary School Dictionary published in 1913. It’s in pretty good shape for being 109 years old and I think, “With the assault on language today, with changing meanings to suit the woke orthodoxy, a volume like this is a relic, something that the coming regime would gladly burn to keep the previous definitions of reality buried. Like, for instance, how does it define a woman?”
That’s the page out of my 1913 dictionary that defines the word “woman.” Let’s click over to Merriam-Webster.com and see how they define it.
Oh, look! Others are wondering too. “Female” and “woman” and “woke” are in the top searches.
Surprisingly, the definition of “woman” is still accurate: “an adult female person.” That would’ve been adequate for Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to define what a woman is—but she’s a radical feminist, not a biologist.
Well, if a woman is a female, what’s a “female”? Let’s look at how my new 1913 dictionary defines “female.”
“A female human being.” Nice. Notice that it describes pertaining to “the sex of a woman” and later, “FEMALE (opposed to male) applies to … human beings, and always suggests sex,” sex in this case referring to what is meant by “gender” today.
It also clearly makes the distinction between female and male.
How about Webster’s definition of “female”? Oooh, a problem: they’ve tweaked the definition:
Notice that they hedge in 1a: “… typically has the capacity …”, which is an addition to the original definition which read, “of, relating to, or being the sex that bears young or produces eggs.” Apparently, we can no longer unequivocally guarantee that in a female.
But 1b is an all-new definition in which Webster’s has caved completely to the wokesters and added “… a gender identity that is the opposite of male …”
The definition, in other words, means that even though I’m objectively male biologically, I can believe that I’m female and pretend that’s what I am. From there, it’s only a small step to expect that you will identify me that way, using my female name and the appropriate pronouns that I choose, including those that apply to females.
That’s where I will have to draw the line. If an objectively biological male demands that I use his “preferred pronouns,” such as “she, her, hers,” I will say, “no.” My logic is that such a person is asking me to deny what is objectively true, a truth that not only have I known all my life, but a truth that previous generations have known and have taught down through the ages.
I am not, and will not, do so, because I have the freedom to choose, and I have the freedom of conscience, and his request makes me uncomfortable. I absolutely will not participate in a delusion or some sort of make-believe because someone says I should.
The scriptures tell me differently (Deuteronomy 22:5) as does common sense. I am also affirmed in my position by an antique book written 109 years ago, demonstrating the rich history of rational understanding that backs me up.
Someday I’ll have to trace the development of sex, gender and gender identity. Why did we move from “sex” to “gender” and did that open the door to “gender identity”? If you know something about that, share a resource in the comments section.
