Lauren Erath

History is in and of itself a very difficult thing to comprehend and to study. Anyone who wishes to study history and unravel its truths must travel deep into a multitudinous sea of difficulties. What difficulties make up this monstrous sea? They are far too many for any one person to detail, but there are specific difficulties that the historians Becker and Woodward have discussed that I find to be the most tedious and problematic difficulties that a historian could face. These difficulties include the intangibility of the past and the biased imperfection of man, the elusiveness of true fact, the illusions of false realities, the perversions of history that have been made for other people's benefit, and the relativism of history itself. 

                History is intangible, thus its very form and substance is very susceptible to change. This is the argument Becker makes, and is one that I agree with completely. Since history is intangible and its substance does change over time and comes from the past, it is impossible for anyone living in the present to accurately uncover all of its truths without altering and thus distorting them just by studying them. This occurs because history is in form an idea, and the moment man ventures into studying it he will always brings his own thoughts and ideas with him and, rather intentionally or not, contaminate the truthful ideas with his own imperfect thoughts and misconceptions.

                History is very difficult to study because true facts are elusive to mankind. Becker argues that facts cannot exist if they are not affirmed by man, and I agree with him. The problem with facts having to be affirmed before they are considered facts is that someone has to decide what is and isn't fact and has to contrive some sort of basis for deciphering the two. Along with that, there is always the possibility that the basis for deciphering fact is inaccurate and thus is false. Whether it is correct or not, there is no evident or tangible way to prove what is fact and what is not when it concerns something that is like history and is intangible.  This applies to the historian in that he has to figure for himself what is fact and what is not when he studies the documents and records that were left behind long before their time. Not only does he have to do that, he also has to decide to what extent the facts are true, for it is very possible for man to leave something behind that is in part true, but is in part false. This is due inevitably to man's imperfections and serves as just another obstacle for the brave and noble historian.

                The illusions of false realities make it extremely difficult for historians to figure out what actually occurred in history. This is yet another one of Becker's arguments that I agree with. Since everyone who has lived on the earth has their own set of experiences and accumulates different segments of data and information in their mind, their perception of life differs from everyone else's and no too perceptions are the same. Everyone lives in their own contrived world with their own understanding of reality. Since everyone understands reality differently, they arrive at different conclusions and have different opinions about everything under the sun. This makes life difficult for the historian in that he has to deal with his own misconceptions of reality while studying history in the contexts of what other people have left behind about their imperfect understanding of reality and their misconceptions about what happened when they were alive. If the people who lived in the time the historian is studying cannot accurately explain what was actually occurring and why, how is it that the historian can come to an accurate conclusion?

                In addition to the how difficult it is to discover solid facts and accurate records of past histories, studying history is made even more tedious because of how people have perverted history on purpose to promote their own campaigns or further their own political movements and boost nationalism in their country. Woodward is the historian that brings the dangers of these perversions to light, and I agree with him when he warns people that they should not believe everything they read. Woodward gives examples of how American leaders exaggerated the abuses they had received from King George in order to fuel their people with anger and vengeance so they would revolt and strive for independence. The fact that historians have to decipher which records and perceptions are correct and what are plan out wrong make their job more difficult than ever.

                The most difficult challenge historians face is the relativity of history itself. True history certainly does exist, but mankind doesn't know what it actually is. This argument is brought up by Woodward, and I concur with it completely. Every time that anyone has a different thought or opinion about history, the meaning of history is altered. There are far too many variables in history, and in life in general, for anyone to get it completely right (except for God). Truth is multi-faceted, and everyone looks at it from a different angle. Since there is truth in history that is multi-faceted, everyone look at it from a different angle as well. Historians can use the view of other people's perspectives, and see history from their angle, but those people may not have a clear view to begin with, and the view only gets more blurry with time.

                I think that historians can overcome these difficulties by using the God given gifts of reason and logic to analyze the past. I also think they can look at several different perspectives of the same occurrences and check them against each other or combine them to get a more accurate picture of what happened.

Before I begin I request that everyone who reads this entry remembers that I am usually a very nice person and not a completely insane critic. Now that that has been said, I will begin a very critical analysis of Tending to Eden.

As I have mentioned before, the beginning of Sabin's book, Tending to Eden, is very informative an a positive way. Then comes the rest of the book...

The following are what I consider to be the proofs that best support my opinion that a large amount of Tending to Eden is biblically incorrect and has improperly supported claims:

One of Sabin's claims that I will disect is found on pages 98-99 of Tending to Edin. On page 98 Sabin says,"The biblical account is not just the story of God's love for his people and the redemption of humankind through Christ. It is that, but is also the story of God's love for everything he has made." I understand what Sabin is saying when he states this, but I have to say that I disagree. The bible is about God's relationship with mankind. The bible was written so that man might be saved by faith and know God. It is true that the bible does tell people things about God's creation to some extent, but it is not all about the trees, rocks and birds. The biblical account is about Jesus' sacrifice for the salvation of believers. It is about God's saving grace and his love for mankind. By phrasing this claim as he has done, Sabin seems to be undermining the truth and point of the gospel!!!!

Sabin later talks about the biblical verse, John 3:16, and about the Greek word kosmos. I know that this word is Greek and I know that the original texts of the New Testament were written in Koine Greek because I have actually been learning it over the summer with the aid of my wonderful grandfather. Yes, the word kosmos means world, but that doesn't necessarily mean all that God made. It is true that one definition of the word kosmos is the entire universe. However, there is also another definition that refers to mankind, or the public. This must be the correct definition for the word kosmos in the text, because the text later goes on to say whoever and not whatever. The word whoever indicates that the verse is talking about people, not all of creation. After alll, if it were the other definition, which Sabin thinks it is, then the verse would be saying God loved the entire universe so much that he sent his son to save mankind for the sake of it. The doesn't make any sense. How can trees or rocks benefit from the salvation of mankind? In the end the trees would die anyway and the rocks wouldn't be able to tell the difference between existance and nonexistance. Surely Sabin is not indicating that man was saved because of how much God loved the trees, and yet it definately seems as if he is. 

 Man is much more important to God than the trees are, surely Sabin knows this! In Matthew 6:26 Jesus, God Himself, says, "Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, nor reap and gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they?" In this verse, Jesus clearly shows that people are much more important to Him than birds. Yes, God does loves the birds, but not nearly as much as people. He even says that people are much more valuable than birds. Thus, I would have to say that the birds or the trees or whatever else exists on this earth had hardly anything to do with why God saved people!!!!

On page 99, Sabin says. "The story is not always about us." I highly disagree with this statement. The bible wasn't written for the lilies of the field or the birds of the air....they can't even read...all the stories are about God and man, and how Jesus saved us!!!! The story is about us because the bible was written for us in order that we might be saved.  

Sabin continues on by quoting Job 38:4-7, which is about God talking to Job concerning how He is the ruler of all and Job is not. Sabin takes this verse about God talking to man about man's arrogant view of himself and twists it around to fit his ideas about the environment. Sabin says about Job 38:4-7, "It is clear in this passage that God takes delight in these things (lions and such), that they are a source of joy." Sabin is missing the main point! Yes, God loves creation, and yes He does delight in it. However, God did not say those things to Job to show His delight for creation, He said those things to Job to show him who was boss. Sabin has taken this verse completely out of context, and by doing so has created an improper proof for his opinon about creation.

The bible is about God and His relationship with man. Jesus' sacrifice is the most important and central part of the bible. I don't disgree with Sabin when he says we should be good stewards of God's creation, for I am well aware that God does want us to take care of it. However, I strongly disagree with Sabin's misinterpritation of scripture and how he tries to put words in God's mouth. I don't think God likes it when people do that, but hey, that's just my opinion.
Speaking of opinons, I have one more critique to make. Sabin didn't do a very good job of editing his book, and that causes me to not want to take him seriously. His gramatical errors, along with poor support and twisted/ignorantly stung together claims, make me really not want to read his book. On the positive side, I did learn a good deal about how to help poor people regain their dignity and how to be a better steward of the planet by making simple changes in my life. On the less positve side, I also learned how not to write a book....

When I first began reading Tending to Eden it first seemed to be a very informative book. I figured that by reading it I would gain much insight into how one can properly help people who live impoverished lives. For the most part, the first few sections of the book did just that. Sabin shined much light on how to help poor people help themselves. I agree completely with teaching people how to make a living for themselves so they can regain their dignity and not have to live off of random donations. Sabin did a good job of explaining how to grow sustainable farming land and how to use agroforestry to grow food and other crops to make a living from. He explained just how much of an economic boost it can be to create banks that give loans to the poor when they start making their own farms can be if it is used correctly. Sabin also showed how truly intelligent many poor people are and how they can often make a successful life for themselves if they are given the right tools and information to work with.
Unfortunately, a large majority was not nearly informative as the beginning of the book and often left me feeling extremely angry. The saying goes that you can't jugde a book by its cover. I will go even further than that saying by stating not only can't one judge a book by its cover, one can't judge a book by its first couple of chapters either!

Hi, my name is Lauren Erath. I just graduated from Concordia Academy High School. I played volleyball during all four of my years in high school and played the flute in band for the last three. This summer I am working at Subway. My college major is going to be Director of Christian Outreach. I want to be a missionary once I get out of college.                                 I really like the color blue and wear blue clothing almost every day. Some of my favorite things to do are writing stories and going on adventures. Often times I get caught up in my imagination and spend a little too much time in dream land. When I am not caught up in my imagination I like to climb trees, learn new skills such as making stained glass pieces, watch a little bit of anime such as Sailor Moon, read, eat pokey or anything else that is dessert like, go on hikes, swim, ski or iceskate in the winter, try to do slightly dangerous stunts, and contemplate things concerning theology and philosophy. I try to live for God and grow in my relationship with Him, even though it is sometimes really hard to do. That's me.....to some extent.