Why do we feel the way we do as Tongans in relation to the passing on of our Beloved King?

During my research for developing a personal hermeneutics, I came across this little article by Mele'ana Puloka called "Why do we feel the way we do as Tongans in relation to the passing on of our Beloved King?"

I posted up an earlier blog called "Our Sitz im Leben", its purpose is to describe a brief background of the responsibilities of the commoners to their families, villages and to Tonga. This article tend to give another brief explanation to one of the areas of the responsbilities of the tu'a (commoners), that is, to explain the ontology of the tu'a in relation to Tonga (King).

The following is the article:

Our ontology of 'eiki / tu'a (chief / commoner) principles influence us as Tongans the way we see reality. Our 'uhinga (reason / identity) is a communal process, not an individual process. We judge every body (rightly or wrongly) from the perspective that one should have related to God and in turn should have done the right thing. But this sense is embedded on the tu'a / 'eiki (commoner/nobility-royalty) principles based on our blood - relation to the King (through his court under our hingoa matapule [tribal names]). Having to relate to the King is a symbol only of how we corporately need to relate to the ultimate 'eiki, God. On the individual level, every Tongan is in a position to be a 'eiki (noble) or tu'a (commoner) based on our ranking criteria of gender and seniority (mehikitanga and lahi). Everyone then needs to relate personally to God in order to carry out his or her duty over the tu'a (commoner) he or she is 'eiki (noble) to. I believe our ontology was put there by God for us to have a sense that we cannot afford not to relate to our leaders but at the same time, our leaders and individuals must relate to God if we are to live in peace. But before Christianity came to our land, our ancestors had a rather obscured understanding of what the 'eiki (noble-royalty) / tu'a (commoner) principles meant.

Those in authority thought that because they were the God's descendants and the commoners were descendants of a worm, there was much oppression of the tu'a (commoner) by the 'eiki (nobility? Royalty). Christ's teachings and examples gave a new interpretation through King Tupou I who reinterpreted the principles to mean that it is God who rules the Tongans. He replaced the heathen Gods and their representatives with Christ and his new representative (Tupou I). A new interpretation / epistemology came to being. This meant a new relationship came into existence. It was a relationship between an Eternal Father and a Son-King. Out of Tupou I's relationship with God, he liberated the tu'a (commoner) to own possessions, to have rights over their lives, to own rights to land etc. This transformation by the King of Kings (Jesus Christ) over the life of our King Tupou 1, gives Tongans the Christian heritage of 'ofa (love), toka'I (respect) , melino (peace) and fetokoni'aki (helping one another). Remove our Tongan ontology and replace it with foreign principles will only confuse us and change our God-given Tongan-ness.?I mourn the passing on of our King. I guess he understood well (and lived it up) what his great grandfather King Tupou I, fought for and gained - the understanding that the former relationship between the 'eiki (noble-royalty) and the tu'a (commoner) was to be transformed (through Constitution) from one between a tyrant master and a compliant servant, into one between an Understanding Father and Sons or Daughters.

So we are parting with the Father of our land whom God gave to care for us on His behalf. He indeed has done his best and did put Tonga in the lead in the Pacific in many respects for many years. We give our thanksgiving and praises to God for the life of our King. Let us pray for Tupou V and support him that he may rule under the power and the guidance of God whom he represents.

God has change Tonga through King Tupou 1, what is the influence of technology in such an ontology?

Biblical Studies and Computer Concordance

The article “Something new under the sun: Computer concordances and bible study” by Ralph W. Klein (Christian Century 114 N 12 1997, pp 1034-1037) which focus on four positive arguments on what computer concordances do.

1. They help people read the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible … users of these programs (Bible Works, Bible Windows, Gramcord, Logos Bible Software) can maintain and even improve their skills in the original languages. Parsing verb form is also easier using one these programs.
   
2. Electronic concordances enable users to make fresh word studies while vastly reducing the tedium and the time required to assemble the basic data.
   
3. These electronic computer programs produce impressive handouts for adult forums or other educational programs. It allows users to print out passages.
   
4. These programs may become your dog-cared Bible because they allow users to add notes to specific chapters or verses.

In addition to these four positive reasons, Klein also mention other developed software like the Parsons Hebrew Tutor and the Parsons Greek Tutor. Klein also mentions a number of discussion groups on the bible and the ancient world and hundreds of Web sites that provide exegetical, archaeological or other helps.

• www.christusrex.org/
• www.luthersem.edu/learnet/biblepro
• www.uky.edu/ArtsSciences/Classics/gender.html

Using IT as a teaching pedagogy

The impact of information technology (IT) in theological education have provided great software like Bible Works, Greek and Hebrew Tutor where they assist in learning grammatical paradigms, vocabulary and relevant background information. Nonetheless, biblical exegesis is more complex which requires the skills of analysis, comparison and evaluation. An article called “Hebrew Exegesis Online Using Information Technology to enhance Biblical language study” by Steven W. Klipowicz and Tim Laniak focus on developing an online course to teach Hebrew exegesis. (Teaching Theology and Religion, 1999, vol. 2 no. 2, pp 109-115)

Laniak’s development of a web-based pedagogy includes the following:

- Using the internet in which it provides the following educational features to support the learning of Hebrew exegesis:

• Interactivity: student can interact with other students
• Independent of time and distance: learner can access classes and other resources from anywhere and at any time
• Learner controlled: web-based instruction permits the learner to have direct influence upon learning content, pace, and sequence.
  

- A theory-driven pedagogy that used a web-based instructional design was created. This pedagogy was created with these approaches in mind:

• Asynchronous learning: Asynchronous learning is ‘learning at anytime or in any place using internet and World Wide Web software tools such as email, electronic bulletin boards, and web pages as the main vehicle for instruction.
• Collaborative learning: Collaboration is the process of shared creation: two or more individuals with complementary skills interacting to create a shared understanding that none had previously possessed or could have come to on their own.
• Peer review: Peer review is the directed involvement of students in the work of their colleagues for the purpose of critique and feedback. This method is founded upon the theoretical framework of situated cognition.
  

- Laniak’s evaluation:

An experiment is worth undertaking when the potential of new insights or practical gains is likely. Even in such cases, one must consider the risks and trade-offs. Standing at the end of the process, I am delighted at the progress most students made using this innovative format. OT 210-Tech was an experiment using informational technology to address a challenging pedagogical setting (10-hour monthly meetings) and justified by the likelihood of achieving specific educational goals in higher levels of critical thinking. OT 210-Tech also posed risks, especially for those unfamiliar with the use of the Internet. We are optimistic that future versions of this course will have fewer technological difficulties while maximizing the educational advantages of this approach.

We began the adventure by providing an hour-long orientation to the course technology. Students filled out forms identifying their computer systems, e-mail addresses and passwords. I used a computer projector to introduce our OT 210-Tech site. We walked through each "page'' and posted some simple documents. I provided hard copies of the electronic discussion guides that would be due each week on the Web site. I also explained that since this course was experimenting with some novel technology, they would have access to our technical support person in Massachusetts (who provided a letter of introduction with e-mail address, etc.) as well as to myself (by phone, fax, e-mail, etc.). I emphasized that if the technology became a problem at any point, they could resort to a more traditional form of communication (phone or mail) without any penalty. This was a very important offer but neglected by some of the students. Assignments began immediately. A short discussion guide with one page of questions (on twelve verses in the Hebrew Bible) was due the following Monday. As Murphy's Law would have it, the school's server was down that whole weekend! It became clear which students could "go with the flow'' (call or send me an e-mail and wait till they heard back) and which ones would quickly "hit the wall'' (repeated attempts to log on to the site, repeated phone calls expressing alarm and frustration).

After this initial challenge the course moved into a regular pace. Students would post their answers to the discussion guides every week for three weeks of the month. On two of these guides there was an essay question that required some specific form of research and reflection. They were either literary/linguistic/textual, historical, or theological. I would post their 1± 2 paragraph answers anonymously on our essay page to which they would then respond by posting a single paragraph in their own ``folder.`` A student's folder was the private page to which only the professor and that individual student had access. After the first month I encouraged the students to begin using another area of the site designed for their final projects. Two discussion boards (one for each group) were available for group interaction regarding an exegetical commentary. They were assigned a chapter of biblical Hebrew narrative and thirteen discreet exegetical steps to follow (see Stuart 1984). They could divide these up any way they wanted but they were to have the final project organized as a single commentary. The Web board was offered to facilitate group interaction during commentary production. Rough drafts of a student's work and many of the secondary resources could be reviewed by other members of the group who were studying the same passage. This source of input was optional; students would ultimately be graded on their individual (final) contributions to the group project. Of the two groups, only one used this feature extensively. The difference, I believe, was the ability of one group to mobilize and coordinate their efforts early enough in the semester. During our final class session there were two "application'' presentations, one from each group. One group presented a sermon; the other provided an apologetic presentation. We all took a look at the site to verify that the work on both passages was complete. The members of each group were then given four weeks to review the work of the other group critically and to prepare for a final quiz on these two passages. The peer review on these projects was entered into the same personal folders noted above.

Biblical Text and its medium

It seems to me that this is an interesting topic because everyone in the class (BSTHEO 711) has written something about it. I also found that all my class mates have a very similar perspective on biblical text and the web.

Young in her blog ‘Authority of texts: Talks with interpreters’ stated that ‘web reading of a Biblical text does not dissolve its authority automatically, as long as the web reading leaves room for nurturing playfulness. It’s only when that playfulness is removed that the authority of the text becomes jeopardized.’

Te Atapo in her blog ‘Biblical text – printed and digital’ had this to say, ‘Now in the “electronic culture” the digitizing of text makes it possible for nearly anyone to prepare, copy, or modify texts, skills that were formerly the property of few. Anyone with a computer can physically rewrite the digital text in any way. Take a passage from the digital bible -cut and paste into word and bingo! You can alter the text. So the stability of the texts is threatened by deleting, pasting, inserting and inserting. As the World Wide Web increasingly replaces traditional hard copy sources for texts such as the Bible the original text begins to lose all value.’

And Denisek had this to say, ‘So what of the Bible? What does it mean and say about the canon of a collection of sacred texts that can be printed off, used for scrap paper or printed off bit by bit. Just the good comfy bits you like without all that gory mean stuff - never in a wholeness or body but just Xerox sheets.’

A lot of the concerns being raised is about the medium in which the ability of the technology can provide. The question being raised from this is whether the possibilities of mediums provided by technology for the biblical text carries the sacredness of the biblical text or the does the words in the biblical text, its history, carries the sacredness of the biblical text? Can we see the possibilities of mediums provided by technology as a way to protect being written on your sacred book?


open for discussion ... come on class and anyone whose interested!!!

Low-Tech Bible Study

Lingamish have to gone to the extend of providing a “low-tech bible study.”

1. The best way to start this “low-tech bible study” is to start by reading the bible.
2. Lingamish also recommend reading an ‘idiomatic translation’ because ‘An idiomatic translation will show you the meaning of words in their context where a literal translation won’t. Why is that? Because there is not a one-to-one correspondence between words in different languages.’
3. The last is to compare versions and see where they differ. Lingamish is not suggesting to determined wrong and right translations but to explain possible reasons for their differences. Lingamish suggest the following reasons:
   a) One is literal and the other is idiomatic. b) They are saying basically the same thing but using a different expression. c) There is not agreement on what a phrase means.

Although we have technology now, Lingamish still managed to come up with a ‘low-tech bible study’. What would be a ‘high-tech bible study’? How will it be different to this?

Our "Sitz im Leben"

The King’s funeral has stirred up a lot of issues in Tonga, mostly political issues and economical issues. This blog is out of our class conversation during lunch that got me thinking about Tonga and our sitz im leben. Most, have heard of our sitz im leben and found it interesting, others have found it selfish and greedy. The King’s death has not only brought out the good deeds but it has also brought out the bad. Nonetheless, we are faced with Job’s question to his wife, “Shall we receive the good at the hand of God, and not receive the bad?” (Job 2:10). For us Tongans, I think that this is one of the questions we need to think about, “shall we receive the good at the hand of our King, and not receive the bad?’ This is also a question for everyone to ask and think about, “shall we receive the good at the hand of our friends (or families members like father, mother, sister, brother etc), and not receive the bad?” In the context of Tonga, the question is shape to ask, “Shall we received the good at the hand of our “leaders”, and not received the bad?”

The problem in Tonga, nowadays, that we grew up as followers who today want to be leaders. We grew up into a family of hierarchy where the father is the head of the family, and as children, we show our respect to our father by doing; what father says, children do. That is our responsibility as children to our families; is to do what father says. There’s an old saying in Tonga that a father ones said to one of his kids. During a feast preparation this father told the eldest son to go and get a foil from town but his son had other ideas. The father turn around and said to his son, “I don’t need your thoughts my son, I’ll do the thinking in this family, all I need from you is your strength to do the work.” This is the kind of mentality that we as Tongans are brought into. We were not brought up to think, we were not brought up to be leaders, but we were brought up to be followers.

If we move into a wider context outside the fence of your own household, we are looking at hierarchy in villages. Tongans lived within villages that have their own chiefs and nobles, these chiefs and nobles are the head of each village. Their responsibilities as heads of each villages concern the good of the village as a whole. As you can see leaders in villages have limitations. As fathers, their limitations are bound to their ‘api (household), talking of villages is beyond a father’s restriction. A minister is a leader, but one that limits his leadership only to within the church and to his role as a minister. A rugby coach is also a leader and again but only to his rugby team. A principal of a school is also a leader but only to his teachers and students and the list of leaders goes go. In each case of the leaders mention above, it is their capability, ability and their qualification that defers them from being a follower to being a leader.

Now, let’s take a look at Tonga as a whole. The hierarchy system now in Tonga has both its positives and negatives. There is not a governing system out there in the world that is perfect let alone the hierarchy system in Tonga (if you know one then please let me know). The most talked about political issue in New Zealand today is the unlawful spending in the lead up to last year's election. We can argue that each party are paying the money back, however, the negative of the governing system has already shown to exist. What are the people going to do? Would having are re-election solve everything for New Zealanders? A similar situation can be see in the governing system in Tonga. Would democracy solve Tonga's problem? Is this the only solution to Tonga's governing system? There is a need for a detail investigation to find the root of the problem in the Tonga's governing system in order to provide a solution. Because Tonga is so rooted in the hierarchy system that if this hierarchy system needs to be replaced it might as well need to start at home. Nonetheless, the positivies and the negatives in the governing system in Tonga will not stop the people's responsibilities to their families, villages and to Tonga. And regardless of the financial status of the “followers” (people) in Tonga, they still have their responsibilities to their “leaders”, whether it is in the family, the villages or for Tonga as a whole.

The Impact of Technology on how we learned

Introduction
A change is upon us – nothing could be clearer. The printed word is part of a vestigial order that we are moving away from – by choice and by societal compulsion. I’m not just talking about disaffected academics, either. This shift is happening throughout our culture, away from the patterns and habits of the printed page and toward a new world distinguished by its reliance on electronic communications.(Sven Birkerts, In the Electronic Millennnium, in Writing Material: Readings from Plato to the Digital Age (2003), 63.)

The impact of technology cannot be better explained than what Sven Birkerts has explained above. It is a change, a change that cannot be stop, but needs to be nurture so that it would not get out of hands but works to our advantage. This, however, lead us to the major question regarding authority, that is, are we in control of technology or the technology are in control of us?

The impact of technology in our lives is huge and due to the word limit of this essay I will restrict myself by focusing only on the impact of technology and our learning. The term learning here is referring to the ways in which we learn, that is, through reading, interpreting and writing. We absorb information by reading, then we interpret that information to make meaning out of it then we write it down. In this essay, learning will be associated with Biblical Studies, so, I will not talk about learning in general but learning in Biblical Studies. Biblical Studies is an academic field in Theology focusing on studying both the Old and the New Testament in the Bible.

Technology versus Reading and Writing
The medium determines how we read and write, meaning that different medium we lead us to read and write in different ways. A printed book is sequential, so it is logical to read a whole book in order to understand the meaning of that particular book. One of the ways in which the author will arrange his or her printed book will begin with a hypothesis. The body of that printed book will be the investigation of that hypothesis, providing both arguments for the hypothesis and arguments against. At the end, the author will state his or her position and provide a solution (if needed) to his or her hypothesis. Therefore, in order for the reader to make sense of the printed book, the reader, must read sequentially according to how the printed book was written. In whatever way the author writes his or her book, the point is that the reader will read accordingly.

On the other hand, when writing on the web, the author cannot determine which way the reader will read. This is because technology like the web does not arrange its information sequentially like a printed book. In Tim Bulkeley’s article, “Hypertext Bible Commentary and Encyclopaedia: a New Zealand-based international electronic publishing project”, he talks about the process of his project which was to create an online commentary of the Book of Amos (Bible). Bulkeley mentioned that one of the major problems he came across was ‘learning new forms of writing – writing for screen suggests, or even requires, dramatically different styles of writing that reverse many of the conventions of scholarly rhetoric.’ (Tim Bulkeley, "Hypertext Bible Commentary and Encyclopaedia: a New Zealand-based international electronic publishing project," in Stimulus 12, no. 3 (2004), 46.). Bulkeley explain three writing problems he came across, first, instead of writing with the assumption that the reader will follow your writing sequentially, do not assume that. Secondly, do not leave the main points to the end, say it in the beginning then you can have your reasons and explanations. Thirdly, make sure that your writing is scannable.

This is because the arrangement of information on the web is not sequential. Upon opening a web page, that particular page is technically called a lexia. Within a lexia there are links to other lexia, so you might be reading one lexia and you come across a link that says “click here,” when you do, you will come to another lexia. Therefore, a web page is technically called ‘hypertext’, which are lexias connected through links. This means that you as a writer will never know which way a reader will read your text. Not only that, but if you do a google search say on ‘electronic and bible’, the result of that google search will not lead you to the first lexia of your hypertext. The hypertext could be about the advantages of electronic and it has something about ‘electronic and bible’ say on the twentieth lexia, the google search result will take you straight to that twentieth lexia. So the reader could start reading on the twentieth lexia and if it is not making any sense then the reader will look at another hypertext. We now can see that not only you as a writer do not know which way a reader will read, you do not even know where the reader will start reading.

We now see the impact technology have on how we read and write but the question, however, still stand, are we in control of technology or the technology are in control of us?
Technology versus Interpreting

In the field of Biblical Studies, there are certain criteria used in determining a valid interpretation. In my blog Modern Technology and Biblical Interpretation I have talk about A. K. M. Adam's article, ‘This is not a Bible’ which illustrate the influences in which technology has in our interpretation.

Who holds the authority?
It took a while to attract but finally an answer emerges from the reasons above. Are we in control of technology or the technology are in control of us? In terms of technology and its impact on how we learn in Biblical Studies, the technology is in control of us. The impact that technology has made in the way we learn in Biblical Studies change the way we write, the way we read and the way we interpret. It changes everything in learning, technology dictates how we learn.

Conclusion
In conclusion, we have found an answer to our question which is, yes, the technology are in control of us rather then us having the control over the technology. We have account for the impact of technology on how we learned in Biblical studies. It affects how we read, how we write and it also affects how we interpret. This again raised another question; if the technology holds the control, in terms of our learning, is it a good thing or bad? There will be some gain in learning and there will be some loss. For example, in the process of exegesis, there are certain guidelines that need to be followed. Now, we have the software BibleWorks and it does the process of exegesis for you. We gain a faster process of exegesis, but will tend to forget those guidelines needed for exegesis. That still leave us with one question, in terms of a person, is it a good thing or bad?

How do we deal with changes?

We encounter change all the time; in our lives, in our bodies, in our minds; within our families, our societies, our community churches and even within our schools. So, not only change cannot be stopped but whenever changes occurred there is always a consequence. Our lives change as we migrate from one country to another. Another consequence is the bodily looks that we desire on television and magazines have a possibility of creating eating disorder. Another is the way we think, it changes by the day as we absorb more information, so, how do we deal with ‘changes’?

The word ‘change’ can mean a lot of things including what has been mention above but in this essay, the word ‘change’ refers to the moving from the print era to the electronic future. This essay will be an attempt to compare and contrast two articles in term of the issue of ‘changes’. I will compare and contrast the style used and also the point of views express in the two articles. In doing so, I am hoping that it will give some kind of light to the question of this essay.

The first article is by Sven Birkerts called “Into the Electronic Millennium,” taken from an edited book named Writing Materials: Readings from Plato to the Digital Age edited by Evelyn B. Tribble and Anne Trubek. Birkerts argues that

‘change is upon us – nothing could be clearer. The printed word is part of a vestigial order that we are moving away from – by choice and by societal compulsion ... This shift is happening throughout our culture, away from the patterns and habits of the printed page and toward a new world distinguished by its reliance on electronic communications.’[1]

Birkerts went on to describe the evidence of these changes but stating that these changes are not so recognizable in the sense that the disk drives hooked to modems, transmissions linked to technologies of reception, recording, duplication, and storage. There is also the number and codes and frequencies, button and signals yet why hasn’t somebody stepped forward to explain what is going on?[2] On the other hand, to get the enormity of the changes happening around there is a need to compare today to the past. As the time goes by, more people are turning to the computer instead of the daily newspaper, trees and rocks have receded, distance and time is no longer a problem, and that was then this is now. For the time being, we cannot determine ourselves where we stand in terms of the print era and the electronic era because we are still in the process of that movement. We do have modern technologies now but people cannot seem to let go of their books. The truth is that we are living in the time of overlap where the changes around push us one way yet we cannot seem to let go of the past and the print era.

The print order is linear and logical by means of the syntax. Here, Birkerts defines syntax as ‘the substructure of discourse, a mapping of the ways that the mind makes sense through language.’[3] The syntax requires active reading and focus of the reader in order to make meaning of it and we engage with it in private. The print material is fixed and cannot be change by the writer or the reader once it’s printed. Materials are layered upon layered to maintain active reading and to sustain focus.

The electronic order on the other hand is quiet the opposite. The engagement with information and content is relatively public because of the nature of the web. The material is not fixed anymore and it can be easily cut and paste to suit the need of the reader. ‘If the print medium exalts the word, fixing it into permanence, the electronic counterpart reduces it to a signal, a means to an end.’[4] In the end, Birkerts concluded that ‘no one can really predict how we will adapt to the transformations taking place all around us.’[5]

The second article is by Howard Rheingold called “Look Who’s Talking.” This article is taken from the same book as Sven Birkerts’ article was. Given Rheingold’s background as a person who loves his technology, he sets out to investigate how technology affects him as a person. He turned to a community which has separated themselves from the rest of the world, The Amish communities. As first it seems that what is heard outside of the Amish community is right but as Rheingold found that it is more to it then just separating themselves from the world of technology. Horse-drawn machinery, homemade clothing and live in houses which lack basic modern necessity like electricity are some of the things the Amish community differ from the ‘world of technology.’

On the other hand, we can also found consumer technologies like disposable diapers, in-line skates and gas barbecue grills which illustrate that there is a system in the Amish community that allows them which technology they can use. One of the controversy in this system is the discussion of the telephones, as Rheingold’s guide said, “whenever you see an Amish woman sitting in the field like that (a woman sitting a hundred yards from her house holding her hand up to her ear), she’s probably talking on a cell phone.”[6] The controversy has force one-fifth of the Amish church members to break away and certain Amish communities have accepted telephone for the reason of emergency calling, however, they too did not allow the phones in their home. Instead, they made it a communal where a neighborhood of two or three will share a telephone house in a wooden shanty. This is because Amish community does not want to interrupt a conversation at home by answering the phone so they put the phone outside.

Rheingold also found out that it is all about control, Amish community wants to be in control, they do not want the technology to control them. While talk to Amos (one of the Amish) about electricity Rheingold asks Amos why not use the public electricity instead of diesel generator and 12 volt battery. Amos reply by stating that by connecting to public electricity it is uncontrollable, sooner or later, radio, television will be plugged but by having a generator and a battery we can control the use of electricity. In the end, Rheingold concluded that the ‘Amish provide a precise philosophical yardsticks that could guide the use of technological power … If we decided that community came first, how would we use our tools differently?’[7]

These two articles both have different styles. Style here, is refer to how the author structure his article and his argument not only that but style also refer to the language that each individual author used. Birkerts structures his article according to a scientific format where he states his thesis then he gives evidence to support his thesis. After he illustrates these evidences he then states the development that we need to look out for as we move from one era to the other. This particular style suits Birkerts’ purpose, which is to illustrate that change, is here and not in the future to come and it also brings out his point of view clearly and it is arrange in a logical format that you get a linear systematic argument.

This is different to Rheingold. Rheingold is not putting out his point of view. He is not building up an argument. He is looking for an answer to his question, what kind of person am I? So, he sets out his article to give evidence from his research that he conducted at the Amish community. Rheingold talks about his research and then draw his conclusion on his research, and which change his approach and used of technology to limit the control of technology over him. But again, as he has to come to a conclusion and shown some light on the questions that he started out with he concluded with another question, ‘If we decided that community came first, how would we use our tools differently?’ Therefore, we can see that both authors have used a particular style that contributes to bringing forth their individual point of views and delivered their purposes.

In addition, the language used in these two articles is different to some extend. Although they can be similar in their used formal languages and their used of the personal pronoun ‘I’, majority of these two articles are different to one another because of the nature of both articles. For example, Birkerts’ structure by providing a thesis and then illustrate evidence, the language is formal, it shows by this quote, ‘To underscore my point, I have been making it sound as if we were all abruptly walking out of one room and into another, …’[8] He is summing up his thesis to indicate that he will now turn to give evidence for his thesis. Not only that the language is formal, the structure is formal too.

Rheingold, on the other hand, uses a lot of informal language. This is, however, suit his structure and nature of his article. For the reason that he is explain his research and drawing out his conclusion from his research it is reasonable for him to informal language like the majority used of the word ‘I’, the used of the speech quotes for example, ‘Moses said, “it wasn’t accepted to have telephone in the building, even in a business.”’[9]

As I have mentioned before, the style of the article depends on what the purpose fot eh author and his/her point of view. Indeed, both Birkerts and Rheingold have similar views about technology but different experience. They are both cautious of the impact of technology, Birkerts warns the reader by illustrating developments like language erosion, flattening of historical perspectives and the waning of private self, that we need to look out for as ‘our proto-electronic era yields to an all-electronic future.’[10] Rheingold on the other hand base his whole article in finding ways that we should not let technology take control of us and one of the ways he found out to do that is to limit the technological appliances at home.

In conclusion, in comparing and contrasting these two articles I have come to realize that they have shine the light on my question, how do we deal with change? I think that there is not a definite answer to this question as Birkerts have illustrated. I also think that if we do come up with an answer to this question, it will only raise another question as Rheingold have illustrated. However, it does not mean that we should stop looking for an answer. We need to learn to adapt to the changes happening around us. This is because the changes around us will change our perspectives, our lives, but also how we live. Therefore, the question still stand, how can we deal with change?

[1] Sven Birkerts, “Into the Electronic Millennium” in Writing Material (New York: Congman, 2003), 63.
[2] Ibid, pg. 64.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid, pg. 66.
[5] Ibid, pg. 73.
[6] Howard Rheingold, “Look Who’s Talking” in Writing Material (New York: Congman, 2003), pg 380.
[7] Ibid, pg 387.
[8] Birkerts, “Into The Electronic Millennium.” pg 65.
[9] Rheingold, “Look Who’s Talking.” pg 385.
[10] Birkerts, “Into The Electronic Millennium.” pg 70.

Modern Technology and Biblical Interpretation

The title ‘modern technology and biblical interpretation,’ literary means what it says. ‘Modern technology’ means the digital media available in the twenty-first century, including hypertext, links, frames, multimedia etc. The term ‘biblical interpretation’ on the other hand means the process in trying to reveal a meaning within a particular biblical passage. The title, however, raised questions like, what is the effect of modern technology has on our biblical interpretation? But after reading A. K. M. Adam’s article called ‘This is not a Bible: Dispelling the Mystique of Words for the Future of Biblical Interpretation’ in an edited book called "New Paradigms for Bible Study" edited by Robert M. Fowler, Edith Blumhofer, and Fernando F. Segovia, it got me thinking about whether modern technology can improve our biblical interpretation?

Adam talks about two propaedeutic recuperations in relation of biblical interpretation to cybermedia (or hypertext). The first is what he called ‘Demystifying the Word(s)’ where Adam explains that working with word(s) alone will not satisfy your needs in terms of interpretation. He stated that ‘a hermeneutics that works only for words is itself incomplete and insufficient’ (pg. 7). He also reminds us that we need to be aware of other medium like pictures, animations and videos then he ends this sub-topic by saying that ‘Pictures, animations and videos will not supplant words but they will become ever more prominent as supplement, as context’ (pg. 14). Although we cannot replace word(s) we still need to be aware of other medium of meanings.

The second is what Adam called ‘Relaxing hostility to allegory.’ Adam explains that new media is introduced and as a result new criteria are in need to learned. The old media for interpretation is the printed word(s), now, we are being introduced to modern technology and Adam is warning us that out of this new media we need to learn new criteria. Historical criticism is one of the criteria use to evaluate texts and interpretations. But what Adam is suggesting that:

The contributors to ancient and medieval theology found in allegorical interpretation a device for expounding the Bible in the light of what they understood to be its plain sense, its more refined theological sense, its moral import, and its adumbration of things to come … (not only that) but their practice of the quadriga did not permit them to make Scripture say whatever then wanted, but brought to their consciousness the pertinent constraints on the range of permissible meaning (pg. 17)

The criteria Adam is suggesting is allegorical interpretation and we need to learned it because it provides a guideline for interpretive imagination.