Notes on Truth
Meg’s notes, related to episode one on Genesis 6.
Let’s kick off with looking up the definition of “truth.”
Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “truth” as follows:
The body of real things, events, and facts. Actuality.
The state of being the case. Fact.
A transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality
A judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true
The body of true statements and propositions
The property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality
Fidelity to an original or to a standard
Sincerity in action, character, and utterance. Fidelity. Constancy.
God
Interesting that there are more than a handful of ways, according to this source, to define the word “truth” or, there is evidently more than one way to understand the meaning of or how to measure something against what is true.
Let’s look a little closer…
Dictionaries, by definition, provide a clarifying, defining, meaning of something or someone. They are objective. Or at least they’re supposed to be. They are void of opinion because the entries contained provide factual meaning to help understand language, communication, and even behavior. Behavior however is rarely defined through an objective lens since the behavior is often impacted if not led by cultural, social, and political movements or time periods.
Ok, so let’s again back up a moment and consider…
Entries in dictionaries are being edited and even changed, to reflect the cultural pulse of society - in other words, subjectivity and self-governance have creeped in. One or two line definitions have become a running list of a pick-and-choose-what-works-for-you buffet of non-committal statements. This evolution is the operational hinge that has provided access to the invasive “my truth” era in which we find ourselves.
This evolution is widely known, and accepted by the masses. In 2014 Bruce Joshua Miller wrote a piece on dictionaries that was published in the Chicago Tribune about how the world still needs dictionaries, but how we define them is changing. Mr. Miller seems to emphasize the underlying belief that a dictionary provides a “window” into culture and society, and therefore its content should simply reveal this reality.
____
“Entries in dictionaries are being edited and even changed, to reflect the cultural pulse of society - in other words, subjectivity and self-governance have creeped in. One or two line definitions have become a running list of a pick-and-choose-what-works-for-you buffet of non-committal statements. This evolution is the operational hinge that has provided access to the invasive “my truth” era in which we find ourselves.”
____
With the risk of traveling down a rabbit hole, we have to at least stop for a brief moment here and make the connection between this idea of “window” and subjectivity; going even further - considering “window” as the catalyst behind promotion and perpetuation of infatuation with self-interest. In science, and in the practice of scientific research and discovery, the process of observation is effectively objective. Recording facts. Recording what happens, to later solve a problem or answer a question or prove or disprove a hypothesis. This accepted process of objective observation to understand and help make sense of something has morphed and evolved from an albeit mechanical yet efficient and effectively consistent process into a moveable mess that includes a multitude of shifting subjective perspectives that ultimately satisfy a moveable, morally-shifting society. In other words: what we have previously known to be and accepted as objective truth is now a subjectively perverted morally relative narrative, led by a peculiar but unsurprising confluence of misinformed impressionable self-governance and a gross lack of critical thinking and source accountability. A scripted shift, no less.
Like any good script that has been developed and layered and built up, the shift in what is truth was gradual. In 2005 the late night talk show host Stephen Colbert presented the word “truthiness” in his first show slot on air. He used the term to express a type of truth, based upon feeling and emotion, rather than fact (read: what someone feels is true - through subjective reasoning, not necessarily what is in fact truth defined through objective observation). Colbert goes on later to say that “Truthiness is what I say is right, and nothing anyone else says could possibly be true. It’s not only that I feel it to be true, but that I feel it to be true. There’s not only an emotional quality, but there’s a selfish quality.” He would continue to use the term as a foundational layer to his satire and criticism of conservative political strategy and operations, saying that prominent figures in the Republican party would do things such as ignore evidence that would disprove their claims, or sometimes these folks would invent facts to support their opinions. The real irony in his claim is that it is in large part those who speak within or subscribe to this script who have in fact adopted and perpetuated for their own benefit the idea of “truthiness.” In other words, Colbert is criticizing precisely what he and those with whom he has claimed to align are doing. They are in fact the ones manipulating truth for selfish benefit.
____
“What we have previously known to be and accepted as objective truth is now a subjectively perverted morally relative narrative, led by a peculiar but unsurprising confluence of misinformed impressionable self-governance and a gross lack of critical thinking and source accountability.”
____
Interesting related note: the Oxford English Dictionary records use of the word “truthiness” dating to the 1830s but not in the way Colbert describes it. The term’s use back then was in the sense of “truthfulness” - the state of something being full of unshakable, undeniable and unadulterated truth. Isn’t it fascinating that now the application of “truthiness” is nearly the polar opposite of its original definition and application. The same manipulated and calculated appropriation of the term used by Colbert was what served to support the decision of one of the most widely-sourced anchors of reference - the Merriam-Webster Dictionary - to officially include the term a decade and a half later into its collection. Arguably the same body of people who supported Colbert’s presentation of the term, helped make the term “word of the year” for Merriam-Webster not long after its late-night television debut.
Making a Biblical Connection
Let’s return to that idea emphasized nearly a decade ago, of how dictionaries are “windows” into culture and society. When standing in front of a window, we look in or look out. Either way, we observe, we watch. Sons of God who rebelled and defiled human women by taking them for wives in chapter 6 of Genesis are referred to as “the Watchers”:
“When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. Then the Lord said “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.” - Genesis 6:1-4
When discussing this part of scripture in her book The Roots of the Federal Reserve, Dr. Laura Sanger reminds us of the importance of Hebrew meaning:
“The ‘Watchers,’ as they are aptly revered to, “saw the beautiful women and took any they wanted as their wives.” The Hebrew word for “saw” is ‘ra’ah’ which means “to look intently at, to observe, to gaze at, to watch.” This suggests that they were watching the beautiful women and lusting after them. We don’t know how long they were watching, but it was long enough to develop pent up lust, for which they were willing to commit treason in order to fulfill their sexual desires. Even more telling is what we learn from understanding the Hebrew word for “took” in this passage is ‘laqach.’ It means “to seize, to capture, to carry off, to take in marriage.” In other words, the ‘Watchers’ captured the beautiful women and carried them off to sexually violate them, force them into marriage, and impregnate them with Nephilim.”
There is a connection here, between the events of Genesis 6:1-4 (the ‘Watchers’) and the shifting definition of truth. The connection is deception. The pursuit of power, wealth, elevated social and cultural status, all achieved through deceit. Leveraging the Nephilim Agenda (destroying Eve’s offspring/seed, our human DNA) through iniquitous acts and sacrifices in an effort to obtain global domination has gone on for millennia, and it has been the modus operandi for the forces of darkness since this rebellion recorded in Genesis 6. The goal has been the same throughout history, efforts just have different iterations.
You may be wondering about the Nephilim Agenda, and what this has to do with Eve’s offspring/seed and human DNA. We’ll definitely discuss this in later episodes but for now, to offer a baseline contextualization, flip back a few chapters in Genesis to the fall of Adam and Eve, and the Lord’s promise of what will come:
“Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this that you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” The Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring [seed] and her offspring [seed]; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” - Genesis 3:13-15
Understand that Eve’s seed/offspring is human DNA, or humans as we biologically understand them (male and female), and Satan’s seed/offspring is that of the Nephilim. There are those who walk among us today who carry genetic markers of the Nephilim, and there are those who are Nephilim hosts. And then there’s hybrids. Many Biblical scholars go into this in further detail, and we will too, but in later episodes. For now let’s go back to the meaning of deceit.
____
“There is a connection here, between the events of Genesis 6:1-4 and the shifting definition of truth. The connection is deception. The pursuit of power, wealth, elevated social and cultural status, all achieved through deceit. Leveraging the Nephilim Agenda (destroying Eve’s offspring/seed, and our human DNA) through iniquitous acts and sacrifices in an effort to obtain global domination has gone on for millennia, and it has been the modus operandi for the forces of darkness since this rebellion recorded in Genesis 6. The goal has been the same throughout history, efforts just have different iterations.”
____
Dr. Sanger reminds us yet again of the importance of the Hebrew meaning of words. The word “deceive” in Hebrew is ‘nasha,’ and as Strong’s Concordance outlines it means “to deceive, beguile, mentally delude, morally seduce, to impose, to cause to go astray.” It can also mean, as pointed out in the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English lexicon, “to lend on interest, or usury, to become a creditor.” Dr. Sanger points out that by Eve being deceived by Satan means that not only was she led astray but she became in debt to Satan. Stop and consider this when faced with the reality of the world we live in - how there is “misinformation” everywhere. How lies and deceit, manipulation and control, are all hierarchical rungs on the ladder to worldly success. They’re also the way to the depths of destruction. When asked by His disciples of what to look for to know that we are in the end times, the time of His second coming, the first thing Jesus says is a warning against being deceived: “See that no one leads you astray” (Matthew 24:4).
Additionally, and of great importance to note, Jesus says the following last words before His death on the cross: “It is finished” (John 19:30), which in Greek is ‘tetelestai’ - a term or phrase used to describe an end to something (something is fulfilled, brought to an end, finished). The phrase also was used in Greco-Roman culture of the time to describe when a debt was paid in full, bringing the period of being in debt to a close, finishing it. By Jesus dying on the cross, He paid in full our debts of sin. He paid for our sins. Let’s highlight the truth here: Jesus died for our sins, He paid off our debt in perpetuity.
We know now that to be deceived means to be in debt. Sin is a by-product of deception (arguably perpetuated and encouraged by it); sin and spiritual debt go hand in hand in the goal of imprisonment of and by the enemy leading to the enemy’s ultimate goal of destruction of God’s creation (read: death). Jesus freed us from our spiritual debt that would otherwise lead to eternal death and He granted us forgiveness of our sins because He is the Way, Truth, and Life (John 14:6). We must repent of our sins - we must step into truth! - and accept and follow Jesus as our Lord and Savior. We are granted access to our eternal home, the Divine Kingdom, to be with our Father Almighty, Yahweh, because of, through giving our hearts to, and following Jesus.
The Voyeur at the “Window”
If you’re familiar with 19th century art and literature, you will be familiar with the term voyeur or voyeurism - a French word that translates to “peeping Tom, a looky-loo.” Artists of this time created work - written or visual - that essentially reflected culture and society, but through an arguably skewed, critical, or subjective lens. These artists blurred the lines between private and public, often through capturing intimate, sometimes sexualized, moments. They were in essence blurring the definition of what it meant to be a voyeur. Often also this application included seemingly mundane yet otherwise private scenes at home (think: sitting in the living room), or perhaps an otherwise unnoticeable moment captured in perpetuity - and so becoming noticeable (interpretation here of course being an intentional commentary, which is everything but objective observation, yes?). Most common examples of paintings that demonstrate the blurred line of voyeur, both in composition and artist application, can be found in French Realism and Impressionist works - scenes that reflected (read: commented on) modern life. Artists by extension (or definition!) can be considered voyeurs - in order to capture moments to preserve, they must first observe. Often this observation turns into critical commentary.
Gustave Courbet, The Stone Breakers. 1849, oil on canvas, first exhibited at the Paris Salon of 1850, destroyed during World War II. Image courtesy of Web Gallery of Art.
Consider Gustav Courbet, the father of French Realism, who offered social and political critique through his depictions of working class individuals, and intimate domestic scenes. Courbet’s 1849 painting The Stone Breakers shows us an unidealized scene of hard manual labor - a view that contrasts to some of his contemporaries who chose to romanticize manual labor, like in Jules Breton’s earlier painting The Gleaners. A more intimate, closer to definition, many-layered example of voyeur can be found in the presentation of Courbet’s painting The Artist’s Studio of 1855. Here we see a naked woman (one can argue, not the model since she and Courbet are looking upon a landscape painting), the artist himself, and the artist’s contemporaries and patrons - most of whom are gawking at the naked model or gawking whilst lurking in the shadows. There are also other things and types of people in the shadows but let’s save that examination for another time.
Gustav Courbet, The Artist's Studio (L'Atelier du peintre): A Real Allegory of a Seven Year Phase in my Artistic and Moral Life. 1855, oil on canvas, Musée d'Orsay, Paris. Image is Public Domain.
If you’re thinking the definition (and thereby application) of voyeurism has evolved, you’re right. It has (are you surprised?). Let’s look at an iconic film from A. Hitchcock’s film oeuvre, Rear Window (1954). Without spoiling it for anyone who has not seen the film, the basic gist is there’s a journalist-photographer, played by James Stewart, who is cooped up at home because of a leg injury and eventually becomes invested - by way of spying, or being a voyeur - in what he believes to be suspicious behavior in the apartment across the way. Stewart’s character continues to observe, to watch intimate domestic moments, through his camera lens. Hitchcock was no stranger to the employment of voyeurism, even using it in more blatant ways such as in his later film Psycho (1960) and in fact for most of Hitchcock’s films there is an underlying or screamingly evident influence of psychologically damaging behavior (intimate partner violence and abuse, sexual violence, lying and manipulation, etc).
____
“The more inclusive the definition becomes, the further it is from the real truth.”
____
If you look up voyeur or voyeurism in the dictionary today, you’ll still find prominent the defined act of seeking sexual stimulation by way of spying (on partly undressed or naked individuals engaged or not in sexual activity). However, you will also find the following definition: “a prying observer who is usually seeking the sordid or the scandalous.” The expanded definition is striking for two reasons: 1) the broadening defining scope indicates a society that has become far too inclusive (read: desensitized) of sexual desire/activity/motives that it does not see an issue with the spectating of the intimate (think: sexual and pornographic material increasingly accessible, even presented, to younger and younger audiences); and 2) the fact that there is an expanded definition, with terms that skirt around what is sexual (“sordid” and “scandalous”) indicates a making room for subjective interpretation. The more inclusive the definition becomes, the further it is from the real truth.
An older article on dictionaries published in 2002, also in the Chicago Tribune, describes the importance or almost criticality of changing definitions for words based on their use and application in society, saying that “the history of any word depends mightily on its common usage, on its rippling popularity, on its changing significance and on its magnetic strangeness.” If you enjoy a good cringe every now and again at the use of superfluous language, then go on and read that article (the style is unsurprising given the content, yes?).
So how did the shift happen, how did we get here? Well, not in this episode but in our next few episodes we will really dig into this, and talk about Hagelian Dialectic and how interpretation (not observation) is used to define truth; a dangerously invasive imposition strategically played out for decades. But for now, let’s turn back to those definitions of truth—
Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “truth” as follows:
The body of real things, events, and facts. Actuality.
The state of being the case. Fact.
A transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality
A judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true
The body of true statements and propositions
The property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality
Fidelity to an original or to a standard
Sincerity in action, character, and utterance. Fidelity. Constancy.
God
I want to point out how these definitions are organized, because it sheds light on the evolution of interpretation in defining not only the word truth, but the evolution of truth itself as evidenced in evolving definitions. Pay special attention to the definition at the bottom: “God” is a stand-alone definition. A lingering reminder of how “truth” is quite simply - and accurately - defined.
Spirit of Truth: God is Truth
Threaded throughout the Bible we see emphasis upon the fact that God’s word, and He, is truth. You may be familiar with the often quoted scripture from the book of John, where Jesus says “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6). Other verses in John that I would encourage you to dwell within (I have put in bold words to especially consider with regard to truth):
“And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:32)
“When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.” (John 16:13)
“Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.” (John 17:17)
“God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” (John 4:24)
The words in bold present encouraging reinforcement as we consider navigating a world filled with deception - recall that to be deceived is to become a debtor (creditor is the one who deceived). Freedom. Jesus freed us because He is the truth and to know Him is to know truth. Guidance. Jesus is the light in the darkness that guides us. Sanctification and Worship. We are justified through the love of Jesus, and through our continuing worship and following of Him we are being sanctified by the blood of His sacrifice. Jesus, who is and whose word is truth, defeated the enemy, who is and whose words are deceit, and He freed us from the chains of deception.
There are of course so many. more examples of how God’s word, and Jesus - in whom is God’s name (Exodus 23:21) - is truth. One more piece of scripture that I want to point to is in Ephesians chapter six:
“Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace. In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one, and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication.”
(Ephesians 6:10-18)
Typically in ancient and modern history, and still true today, the belt was a critical piece of a soldier’s uniform. The belt held up and held in place all the accoutrements and weapons, like for example the sheath for the sword - arguably the most important weapon. As believers and spiritual warriors we know that God’s word, truth, is our greatest weapon against the enemy, against deception.
“There’s Nothing More Deceptive Than the Obvious Fact”
The trajectory of the collective stepping away from truth is a result of the truth being manipulated and stripped so much that it has essentially become unrecognizable. I am talking about worldly “facts” as well as scripture - both have been manipulated. Of course the other side of the same coin: in today’s world the truth, the real truth, and nothing but the truth (sound familiar? Yep…that’s for another time…) has become the picture of misinformation. Why? Because we’ve been slowly, consistently, calculatedly and strategically gaslit for centuries. By whom? That’s for our next few episodes…