From Text to Signal: how to read without falsifying reality

Personal Synthesis of the Thought of Raúl Cruz-Mireles

by Merly Abondano

1) Why read differently

For years we’ve collected data, methods, and devotions—but the center grew blurry. This project fixes that center: to recover the signal God communicated in the form and substance of Scripture and discard the noise projected by our systems. Methodology, character, and God’s guidance matter, yes, but they are not the center; the center is fidelity to the text. The information we use is public and vast—a synthesis of thousands of studies; what’s distinctive is not the data but how we use it so as not to falsify reality.

2) Signal and noise: the problem of communication

Information theory forces us to start with the obvious: communication is hard. Human language is limited; between senders and receivers there are losses, ambiguities, and biases. If this happens among humans, how much more when communicating the divine. Hence we affirm that Scripture is carefully designed to communicate: it speaks not only with words but with structures (parallelisms, chiasms, repetitions, figures). To envision an Agent optimizing transmission to fallible hearers allows us to trust biblical architecture—not out of fanaticism but communicative rationality: redundancies, multiple channels (written and spoken word, image, sound, living tradition), and a progressive pedagogy through history.

3) Against falsifications: from system to text

The history of thought—from ordinary folks to Kant or Einstein—shows a tendency: to desire another reality and, by doing so, to force the text. Many theologies become reconstructions that glue isolated snippets together to erect “buildings” that do not exist in the passage’s reality. Our proposal reverses the order: we do not let the system force the text; we let the text force (or break) the system. This requires:

• Suspending the anxiety for “a single theology” and recognizing the historical plurality of readings.

• Distinguishing text from theological construction.

• Submitting every claim to tests within the whole of Scripture and in life (practical verifiability).

• Critiquing ideas, not persons, and maintaining transparency about alternatives.

4) Method: architecture, lexicon, versions, reception

We read topic by topic and word by word, subordinating the method to the real problem: how the text communicates.

• Text and variants: we start from manuscripts and critical apparatuses; comparison is not an ornament—it’s the basis for hearing accurately.

• Lexico-semantics: we attend to the historical evolution of terms and how ancient versions use them (not only how we define them today).

• Structure and rhetoric: we identify figures because structure carries information; much of the author’s intention travels there.

• Reception and history: Masorah, Talmud, Patristics, Reformation—not as supreme norm, but as testable data explaining why certain readings prevailed.

• Economy of hypotheses: we prefer explanations that maximize canonical coherence with minimal multiplication of assumptions.

5) Biases and training the eye

Every reader arrives with expectations. The course trains sensitivity to detect them: ideologies, group loyalties, fears, automatisms. We teach how to separate signal (intention) from noise (projection) and to recognize “buildings alien to reality.” We require the why behind every exegetical decision, demand consistency between micro-readings and macro-structure, and prioritize narrative and rhetorical coherence over piling up isolated prooftexts.

6) Deconstruction to heal, not to destroy

Deconstruction is not demolishing faith; it is removing what deforms it. We highlight the risk of religious ego (the need to be right, guilt misused, authority without examination) and propose a spirituality of awareness: facing doubt, silence, mystery, and vulnerability. Inner freedom begins when image ceases to be the idol. True authority is not imposed; it is recognized by fruit.

7) A community that accompanies processes

Community can heal or harm. We advocate for a church that keeps pace with people, listens, corrects with truth and love, and lets the Word audit it. The Spirit is not imprisoned by hierarchies; therefore we cultivate self-critique, openness, and a climate of a laboratory of love, not a moral tribunal. Dogmas and methods exist to serve the truth, never to replace it.

8) Conscious faith, verifiable praxis

Mature faith does not fear doubt nor needs absolute certainties: it trusts enough to test everything and hold fast to what is good. Authentic transformation renews the mind before behavior and is measured in compassion, not in amassed concepts. Hence practical verifiability: what the text teaches must be livable. Formal beauty and canonical coherence are clues of intentionality; praxis confirms the learning.

9) Classroom commitments

• Radical respect for the text: Scripture—including its architecture—guides us.

• Evidence over bare authority: manuscripts, variants, lexicon, structure, and context first.

• Transparency and consistency: alternatives on the table; micro and macro in dialogue.

• Critique ideas, not persons: humility to correct ourselves (teachers included).

• Ongoing correction: the course itself submits to testing and evolves.

10) What we aim to see happen in you

That you think critically for yourself, train an ear able to detect falsifications, gain tools to extract the text’s intention, and the courage to let that intention reorder you. That you move from dogma to evidence, from slogan to discernment, from “believing better” to living from the Spirit.

Closing

Conclusion: the great challenge is to extract the information God encoded in the words and in their structure, and to live according to that signal. If something must break along the way, let it be our system—not the text. Here we learn to do this together—with rigor, humility, and hope.