34: From what I've read this is the first account of rape, but Shechem wants Dinah to be his wife. I understand Jacob's family's anger against him, but he is trying to do the right thing. Why deceitfully ask for something in return for their sister, when they could punish him first? Is it punishment if he thinks he will get the prize in the end? There is no consultation of God or Dinah. It also states that The sons of Jacob answered Shechem, not Jacob himself. This could be the root of the problem because their eyes were blinded by anger and did not have faith in the Lord to deliver justice.
This feud is connected with their tradition of compensation. If someone killed or defiled your family member, justice or payment must be served. The sons of Jacob took it upon themselves to kill all of Shechem's city. They took everything for themselves because of what he did to their sister. Is this right? Is it acceptable because of their customs? Jacob realizes the danger in what they have done, but does not act in any way to change anything. Does this show faith in God that he will protect him or weakness by not teaching his sons the ways of God. If this were to happen today, there would be a lot of dead people.
37: "This is the story of the family of Jacob." I grew up with the story Joseph and the coat of many colors, so I am interested in seeing how my view adds up to the Bible's account. Why would Joseph dig himself a grave? I would not tell my brothers of a dream such as that, but I also think it was part of God's plan because if he had not told them they would not have had reason to be angry later. Ruben, son of Leah, wants to save Joseph's life and return him to their father. This reminds me of the movie Ever After that we watched in the dorm last night. Though there was a daughter who the mother loved more than Cinderella the daughter felt pity on Cinderella and tried to help her any way possible under the radar of their mother. Seeing the notes below, I did not know the robe symbolized royal status. This would be why the brothers continually hate Joseph because he constantly wears the robe plus his dreams of reigning over them. Where was Ruben when they sold him? If he had been there would Joseph not have been sold?
I do not think the brothers anticipated their father's mourning to be so great. I think they felt bad initially seeing him so sad. I find the whole story ironic knowing they are fulfilling the dreams of Joseph, not preventing them.
39: I wonder why Potiphar chose Joseph. Was he the only male slave they were selling, or was there a specific quality that stood out to him? I love that Joseph worked with hands of the Lord and that it was recognized and supported. God was able to move Joseph up the ranks because he was faithful to the Lord. We should be able to transfer this into our own lives and realize if we do our work in the name of the Lord, he will bless us. This passage is so moving and I think over-looked by people who get confused about how to serve the Lord through their work. Again there is a story about how Joseph prevailed over temptation from Potiphar's wife. Though she came everyday he withstood her. This should be an encouragement to men who have struggles towards lust. It does not say Joseph did not struggle dismissing the wife, but he does prevail. It is sad that Potiphar trusted his wife so readily and did not consult Joseph on the subject. But, what would Joseph have said? Would he accuse the wife or take the false blame?
The Lord was with Joseph wherever he wet, even into jail. This chapter is so encouraging to me!
41: When it says there was no one who could interpret them to Pharaoh, does this mean God closed their minds to possibilities or did Pharaoh not accept their interpretations? The cup-bearer remembered Joseph and told Pharaoh. How long had it been since he was released from prison? This is an account that people should take to understand God's timing. I'm sure Joseph did not want to continue in the prison any longer than necessary, but God's timing is always for a reason. Joseph continues to give to the glory of God when others say it is him who can interpret the dreams, Joseph replies it is not him but God. Verse 32 was confusing to me at first but reading it again I understand that it means the dreams will begin shortly. Joseph offers up a plan of action towards the dreams without Pharaoh asking. I think this is a humble but leadership move. He is trying to prove himself to Pharaoh that he can be trusted once more. I think it's odd that Pharaoh simply forgets why he put Joseph in jail in the first place and puts Joseph in power once more over all the land of Egypt. If I were Joseph I would feel a little pressure, but Joseph is a man of God, so I'm sure he had confidence in the Lord. I went to find verse 45b to paste in here and realized that different versions have put the words differently. Our Oxford says, "Joseph gained authority over the land of Egypt." NIV and NKJ state, "Joseph went throughout [all] the land of Egypt." I wonder what the true Hebrew translation is because going out to the land versus gaining authority is very different. Did the people obey him or see him as his brothers had, a favored man? It is not of much significance but I think it's interesting to think about.
Joseph is such a great character. Naming his children after what the Lord has done for him was very humble. Verse 54b states "throughout the land of Egypt there was bread." To me, the bread here symbolizes wealth. I can imagine on the map Egypt growing because of Joseph's wisdom from God and neighboring countries following suit in following the God of Joseph because of his prosperous land. The world bowed down to Joseph just as his dreams said.
45: I would not be able to control myself as Joseph did and state that it was God who brought him to Egypt. I would be angry or prideful towards my siblings, rubbing it in their faces. Good thing it was Joseph and not me. I find it eye-opening all the things people will carry or give to each other, all the animals, weapons, gold and silver. In today's world we give only money, which might translate into land and animals for the Israelites but I feel our hearts are not in the act as much as the heart of Pharaoh and Joseph were in the giving to his brothers. The brothers had lived for so long with this lie about Joseph being killed by a wild animal, so when they tell their father he is slow to believe them. Joseph did not command them to tell the truth about what they did to him to their father, this is mercy I feel he is showing them. He knows seeing him in such great power is punishment enough.
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Oxford Genesis 22, 24-25, 27, 29, 32
22: being in love with rhetoric, I can't help but notice the word choice at the beginning of the chapter, “Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love..." -NKJ God deliberately includes the words "only" and "love" to make the impact of his command ever more frightening. I can only imagine the conversations that went on during these three days that they were traveling. That's a lot of conversation time. I think Abraham would be trying to teach his son how great God is before he is put on the alter, so that maybe Isaac will understand his father's actions. Again the words "only son" appear in verse 12. The angel is congratulating Abraham on his passage of the test.
What does "the gate of their enemies mean?"
24: I learned in class, that "under my thigh" actually means to hold his genitals because the issue was dealing with continual lineage and that is where the seed is centered. Why was Abraham so set on the servant not taking his son to his homeland? Were there people there who might think poorly upon him? We discussed a little that incest might have caused a problem to Isaac's appearance so no woman would want him, but I think it is deeper than that. The servant's prayer is very genuine and touching. He obviously holds his master and God in the highest respect and wants the best for him and his son. It seems to come out of love and not fear. When the servant says "the Lord led me to the house of my master’s brethren.” -NKJ he is quite literal. The father of Rebekah is Bethuel who is the son of Abraham's brother. Some would take this as future kin, but it acts as both past and present. Laban goes through quite a bit of work to please the servant. I wonder if he only wished for the gifts which were seen, or if he wanted to give Rebekah up quickly. Rebekah's family seemed as though they heard the servant say the Lord brought Rebekah before him to take back, so they believed him and gave her up. There was no question of validity. Laban, of course, wants to keep the servant longer for reasons we can only guess are greed, but Rebekah agrees that they should go now.
It is not clear as to why Rebekah hides her face when she knows it is Isaac, but my guess it that it was custom. It was proper for women not to be seen by the man they are to be with until they are wed, but those are my thoughts.
25: I find it very ironic the way the beginning of chapter 25 is set up. It lists all these other children of Abraham and then goes to say, 5 And Abraham gave all that he had to Isaac. -NKJ did he neglect the other children? It says he gave them gifts, but then what does it mean to give all you have to one child and only gifts to another? If I were the other children, I would have a lot of resentment built up towards Isaac. What was Isaac's life like with all those other children?
I was able to take a closer look at the difference between Isaac and Abraham's reaction to life. Abraham and Sarah tried to solve their baby problem by themselves, not trusting in God, by giving up Hagar. On the other hand, Isaac prayed to God for Rebekah. They both trusted that the Lord would provide the answer, and he does.
I cannot imagine that amount of hunger Esau must have been facing to give up his birth right. Over half the land of his father, he gave up for a bowl of soup and bread. The name red = Edom and the Edomites are Esau's eventual people. That is interesting that the soup he sold his birthright for will follow him throughout his life. You have to think though that Jacob had been meditating on this day. He did not think about what he would want from Esau in return for the soup, nor did he give it freely. Jacob had been planning on this day to come.
27: First, I learned that Isaac was breaking some rules, too. He was only suppose to give the blessing when he was on his death bed, but we learn later that Isaac lives much longer after he blesses his sons. In reaction to this, Rebekah decides for herself who should receive the blessing. Many people, including myself, thought that Rebekah was the one to blame, when in reality Isaac was not perfect either. The blessing given is very interesting wording. Isaac says, "And let your mother’s sons bow down to you." -NKJ This is ironic because it truly is Rebekah's favorite son who will rule. Isaac was hoping that Esau would be ruler and Jacob the servant, but his words were against him. I always thought that the birthright and blessing were the same thing, but reading the text again I find they are two separate things. Esau only receives a blessing that he will live by the sword and eventually break away from his brother's rule. He sounds like a baby crying, “Bless me—me also, O my father!” -NKJ He then makes the mistake of telling his mother, the one who took the blessing from him, about wanting to kill Jacob. Rebekah sends him to her brother's house thinking Esau's anger will subside. I think it will take a very long time for that to happen.
There is very little mention of God in this chapter. I find that odd because in the beginning Isaac and Rebekah are very Godly and consult him on many things. This could be a cause for the fighting in their family. just as the descendants of Adam and Eve had to suffer because they fell away, Jacob and Esau will have to suffer until their parents realize their mistake, if they ever do.
29: Jacob shows his true strength when he rolls the stone away from the well. Just as his mother could water the camels, he had the strength of many men. We all saw Jacob as a man of the fields, maybe scrawny and not the fighter that we picture Esau as. But, in reality, Jacob is a very strong man. The image in my mind will probably stay the same but I know now it is not very accurate. Verse 20 is lovely! He loved Rachel so much that the seven years seemed like nothing for him. He did anything for her. I despise Laban for tricking Jacob because it only leads to Leah's hurt. She did not want Jacob, but did want to be loved. Jacob, however, is at fault because he should not have neglected Leah as much as he did. If you don't love her, don't sleep with her! (This is a little funny right now because I just watched an episode of Reba when Reba tells Cheyenne not to sleep with a man unless she loves him.) Poor Leah tries three times to be loved or even accepted by Jacob, and finally realizes that she should start giving praise only to the Lord. My heart goes out for her. I feel Jacob learned this neglect from his father and thought that someone else would take care of Leah.
32: They were allowed female slaves? Is that the same thing as a mid-wife or servant? I find it interesting that Jacob is offering worldly things to try and please Esau, when worldly things are what got them into this mess in the first place. That is good thinking on Jacob's part trying to save some of his pack. I can imagine his eyes budging when the servant says 400 men are with Esau because you know they are probably just like him, big and strong. Jacob prays to God saying he is unworthy of everything God has given him; is he admitting that he deceived to receive the birthright and now he must pay for his actions? After confession he asks God for protection.
I remember one time at church when we learned the five steps of prayer and I think Jacob has this down except for reminding God of what he said. I 'm pretty sure God would not have forgotten his promise to Jacob, but Jacob is like Abraham; he prods God to continue what he promised.
The way the text reads I am ready for failure; it is a rising action that he tells the servants to spread the gifts apart. After Jacob sends everyone ahead of him, he is alone. Randomly, it seems, a man appears and they begin to wrestle. I think it is interesting that Jacob automatically thinks the man is God because he will not tell him his name. I would have thought it could have been Esau, so changed over time that Jacob did not recognize him. How does the naming of places work? Is the specific spot only that name, and does everyone automatically know what to call the place? This happens frequently when God appears, but I wonder how word spreads.
So Jacob is now Israel. I thought they were all Israelites...
The reading skips chapter 34 which is unfortunate because we don't learn what happens between brothers. I feel very uneducated in class. Everyone seems to know so much more than I do about people and happenings in the Bible. Is it simply because they went to Private Christian Schools? I am proud of my upbringing but am sad because I can not connect things in the Bible, yet.
What does "the gate of their enemies mean?"
24: I learned in class, that "under my thigh" actually means to hold his genitals because the issue was dealing with continual lineage and that is where the seed is centered. Why was Abraham so set on the servant not taking his son to his homeland? Were there people there who might think poorly upon him? We discussed a little that incest might have caused a problem to Isaac's appearance so no woman would want him, but I think it is deeper than that. The servant's prayer is very genuine and touching. He obviously holds his master and God in the highest respect and wants the best for him and his son. It seems to come out of love and not fear. When the servant says "the Lord led me to the house of my master’s brethren.” -NKJ he is quite literal. The father of Rebekah is Bethuel who is the son of Abraham's brother. Some would take this as future kin, but it acts as both past and present. Laban goes through quite a bit of work to please the servant. I wonder if he only wished for the gifts which were seen, or if he wanted to give Rebekah up quickly. Rebekah's family seemed as though they heard the servant say the Lord brought Rebekah before him to take back, so they believed him and gave her up. There was no question of validity. Laban, of course, wants to keep the servant longer for reasons we can only guess are greed, but Rebekah agrees that they should go now.
It is not clear as to why Rebekah hides her face when she knows it is Isaac, but my guess it that it was custom. It was proper for women not to be seen by the man they are to be with until they are wed, but those are my thoughts.
25: I find it very ironic the way the beginning of chapter 25 is set up. It lists all these other children of Abraham and then goes to say, 5 And Abraham gave all that he had to Isaac. -NKJ did he neglect the other children? It says he gave them gifts, but then what does it mean to give all you have to one child and only gifts to another? If I were the other children, I would have a lot of resentment built up towards Isaac. What was Isaac's life like with all those other children?
I was able to take a closer look at the difference between Isaac and Abraham's reaction to life. Abraham and Sarah tried to solve their baby problem by themselves, not trusting in God, by giving up Hagar. On the other hand, Isaac prayed to God for Rebekah. They both trusted that the Lord would provide the answer, and he does.
I cannot imagine that amount of hunger Esau must have been facing to give up his birth right. Over half the land of his father, he gave up for a bowl of soup and bread. The name red = Edom and the Edomites are Esau's eventual people. That is interesting that the soup he sold his birthright for will follow him throughout his life. You have to think though that Jacob had been meditating on this day. He did not think about what he would want from Esau in return for the soup, nor did he give it freely. Jacob had been planning on this day to come.
27: First, I learned that Isaac was breaking some rules, too. He was only suppose to give the blessing when he was on his death bed, but we learn later that Isaac lives much longer after he blesses his sons. In reaction to this, Rebekah decides for herself who should receive the blessing. Many people, including myself, thought that Rebekah was the one to blame, when in reality Isaac was not perfect either. The blessing given is very interesting wording. Isaac says, "And let your mother’s sons bow down to you." -NKJ This is ironic because it truly is Rebekah's favorite son who will rule. Isaac was hoping that Esau would be ruler and Jacob the servant, but his words were against him. I always thought that the birthright and blessing were the same thing, but reading the text again I find they are two separate things. Esau only receives a blessing that he will live by the sword and eventually break away from his brother's rule. He sounds like a baby crying, “Bless me—me also, O my father!” -NKJ He then makes the mistake of telling his mother, the one who took the blessing from him, about wanting to kill Jacob. Rebekah sends him to her brother's house thinking Esau's anger will subside. I think it will take a very long time for that to happen.
There is very little mention of God in this chapter. I find that odd because in the beginning Isaac and Rebekah are very Godly and consult him on many things. This could be a cause for the fighting in their family. just as the descendants of Adam and Eve had to suffer because they fell away, Jacob and Esau will have to suffer until their parents realize their mistake, if they ever do.
29: Jacob shows his true strength when he rolls the stone away from the well. Just as his mother could water the camels, he had the strength of many men. We all saw Jacob as a man of the fields, maybe scrawny and not the fighter that we picture Esau as. But, in reality, Jacob is a very strong man. The image in my mind will probably stay the same but I know now it is not very accurate. Verse 20 is lovely! He loved Rachel so much that the seven years seemed like nothing for him. He did anything for her. I despise Laban for tricking Jacob because it only leads to Leah's hurt. She did not want Jacob, but did want to be loved. Jacob, however, is at fault because he should not have neglected Leah as much as he did. If you don't love her, don't sleep with her! (This is a little funny right now because I just watched an episode of Reba when Reba tells Cheyenne not to sleep with a man unless she loves him.) Poor Leah tries three times to be loved or even accepted by Jacob, and finally realizes that she should start giving praise only to the Lord. My heart goes out for her. I feel Jacob learned this neglect from his father and thought that someone else would take care of Leah.
32: They were allowed female slaves? Is that the same thing as a mid-wife or servant? I find it interesting that Jacob is offering worldly things to try and please Esau, when worldly things are what got them into this mess in the first place. That is good thinking on Jacob's part trying to save some of his pack. I can imagine his eyes budging when the servant says 400 men are with Esau because you know they are probably just like him, big and strong. Jacob prays to God saying he is unworthy of everything God has given him; is he admitting that he deceived to receive the birthright and now he must pay for his actions? After confession he asks God for protection.
I remember one time at church when we learned the five steps of prayer and I think Jacob has this down except for reminding God of what he said. I 'm pretty sure God would not have forgotten his promise to Jacob, but Jacob is like Abraham; he prods God to continue what he promised.
The way the text reads I am ready for failure; it is a rising action that he tells the servants to spread the gifts apart. After Jacob sends everyone ahead of him, he is alone. Randomly, it seems, a man appears and they begin to wrestle. I think it is interesting that Jacob automatically thinks the man is God because he will not tell him his name. I would have thought it could have been Esau, so changed over time that Jacob did not recognize him. How does the naming of places work? Is the specific spot only that name, and does everyone automatically know what to call the place? This happens frequently when God appears, but I wonder how word spreads.
So Jacob is now Israel. I thought they were all Israelites...
The reading skips chapter 34 which is unfortunate because we don't learn what happens between brothers. I feel very uneducated in class. Everyone seems to know so much more than I do about people and happenings in the Bible. Is it simply because they went to Private Christian Schools? I am proud of my upbringing but am sad because I can not connect things in the Bible, yet.
Friday, September 28, 2012
Oxford Genesis 12, 15-18, 21
12: I want to know how Abram felt passing by the land of Canaan. After God told him the land would belong to his offspring, did Abram stop and take in the view? Did he think to himself, I will fight for my people, and I may not see it with my own eyes, but my children and their children and theirs will be here? Did he picture the future? Or was the land barren and a waste? Did he doubt that God could make the land prosperous? I just imagine all the things that went through his mind.
I did not know until our discussion in class that the reason they would kill Abram is to take Sarai as their own because to take a man's wife is adultery. There's a little guilt thrown in at the end here "so that I may be saved on your account." Abram did not want to die so he had Sarai follow his plan. It is very interesting that God plagued Pharaoh's house when it was Abram who lied. I find it hard to justify that.
15-18: Abram was beginning to doubt God and his promise of a rightful heir because Abram was very old and so was Sarai. But the Lord persisted not in explanation, but in a deeper promise towards the stars, and essentially towards heaven. And again, Abram is not convinced of his possessions. God then has him go out to find animals of different species and age, cut them in half, and place them on an alter. I think the darkness symbolizes Abram's disbelief and the smoking fire pot and flame are God's words sealing the covenant.
Sarai and Abram are both at fault toards Hagar. Abram first because he "listened to the voice of Sarai" instead of remembering God's promise that his inheritance would come from his own flesh and blood. I understand that that does not directly mean from Sarai but I think God would have inteneded for it to be proper marriage. Sarai is at fault because she commanded Hagar to lie with Abram and was angry when Hagar looked upon her with contempt. If you force someone to have a child, they're going to be mad. The next part between God and Hagar is very encouraging. It reminds me that God will always answer our call for help and that he remembers the less fortunate. His language towards Hagar was very personal so it means a lot more to the servant girl than it would any average person.
Heehee...the word "Shad" means breasts in Hebrew, it could also be translated into fertility, but breast is more fun to work with. Imagine the people calling God theLord with Breasts... But really it was fertility. Anyway, God continues to tell Abram of his promise and renames him Abraham to be the father of many instead of . He makes a new covenant by circumcision, something that is both deeply personal and the sight of the "seed." I think I would have been in Abraham's same situation when he laughed aloud. I trust God in all aspects of life, but our human minds cannot always grasp his power, so to cope, our minds laugh. God was like a father saying "end of discussion" when he "went up" from Abraham. I think God did not want any more talk of proving it to Abraham, no more doubting.
That is so neat tha God came to Abraham in three different men. The fact that he is able to take on a human shape should make everyone who is a believer think twice about what they say and do to everyone because it could be God. When Sarah hears that she will be pregnant it is because Abraham has not told her. Abraham is at fault here for the Lord questioning. Sarah wants to be innocent, which she is not, but it is not her fault that Abraham has yet to tell her the good news or to work on producing that heir.
It seems as though Abraham is testing God to see how far he would go to save the people of a city. I do not like Abraham's attitude. I would have confidence that the Lord would not kill unjustly. Abraham doubts too much about God's decisions. Is that because of the views of the Hebrew people? Do they not believe in God to make the right decisions?
21:Are we suppose to wait 8 days to circumcise? Like earlier stories, it is interesting to see how old people live. Are they actually living that long or is it an exaggeration? I believe they really do live that long because they people they come in contact with need them as a conduit to God. I don't think there is anything wrong with God allowing man to live for hundreds of years. In today's society, no one would want to live that long, especially as a Christian. I'd be ready for heaven once 100 hit.
I find it very rude of Sarah to not want the children to grow up together. She wants her first born to have ALL the land and her servant, whom she allowed to lie with Abraham, to receive nothing. I sympathize with Abraham for not knowing what is right to do in that situation. God however knows all and he calmly told Abraham to send Ishmael away. The story of Hagar and her son interests me to know how Ishmael will come in contact later with Abraham's decedents. Is there a symbolism about the bow to have Ishmael become skilled in that area? I think Abraham knew his way around covenants, so when Abimelech was curious about the seven ewe lambs, Abraham knew exactly what he was doing. He learned from God how to honestly make a covenant between fellow men. Something, I think Abraham did not realize he learned from God.
I did not know until our discussion in class that the reason they would kill Abram is to take Sarai as their own because to take a man's wife is adultery. There's a little guilt thrown in at the end here "so that I may be saved on your account." Abram did not want to die so he had Sarai follow his plan. It is very interesting that God plagued Pharaoh's house when it was Abram who lied. I find it hard to justify that.
15-18: Abram was beginning to doubt God and his promise of a rightful heir because Abram was very old and so was Sarai. But the Lord persisted not in explanation, but in a deeper promise towards the stars, and essentially towards heaven. And again, Abram is not convinced of his possessions. God then has him go out to find animals of different species and age, cut them in half, and place them on an alter. I think the darkness symbolizes Abram's disbelief and the smoking fire pot and flame are God's words sealing the covenant.
Sarai and Abram are both at fault toards Hagar. Abram first because he "listened to the voice of Sarai" instead of remembering God's promise that his inheritance would come from his own flesh and blood. I understand that that does not directly mean from Sarai but I think God would have inteneded for it to be proper marriage. Sarai is at fault because she commanded Hagar to lie with Abram and was angry when Hagar looked upon her with contempt. If you force someone to have a child, they're going to be mad. The next part between God and Hagar is very encouraging. It reminds me that God will always answer our call for help and that he remembers the less fortunate. His language towards Hagar was very personal so it means a lot more to the servant girl than it would any average person.
Heehee...the word "Shad" means breasts in Hebrew, it could also be translated into fertility, but breast is more fun to work with. Imagine the people calling God theLord with Breasts... But really it was fertility. Anyway, God continues to tell Abram of his promise and renames him Abraham to be the father of many instead of . He makes a new covenant by circumcision, something that is both deeply personal and the sight of the "seed." I think I would have been in Abraham's same situation when he laughed aloud. I trust God in all aspects of life, but our human minds cannot always grasp his power, so to cope, our minds laugh. God was like a father saying "end of discussion" when he "went up" from Abraham. I think God did not want any more talk of proving it to Abraham, no more doubting.
That is so neat tha God came to Abraham in three different men. The fact that he is able to take on a human shape should make everyone who is a believer think twice about what they say and do to everyone because it could be God. When Sarah hears that she will be pregnant it is because Abraham has not told her. Abraham is at fault here for the Lord questioning. Sarah wants to be innocent, which she is not, but it is not her fault that Abraham has yet to tell her the good news or to work on producing that heir.
It seems as though Abraham is testing God to see how far he would go to save the people of a city. I do not like Abraham's attitude. I would have confidence that the Lord would not kill unjustly. Abraham doubts too much about God's decisions. Is that because of the views of the Hebrew people? Do they not believe in God to make the right decisions?
21:Are we suppose to wait 8 days to circumcise? Like earlier stories, it is interesting to see how old people live. Are they actually living that long or is it an exaggeration? I believe they really do live that long because they people they come in contact with need them as a conduit to God. I don't think there is anything wrong with God allowing man to live for hundreds of years. In today's society, no one would want to live that long, especially as a Christian. I'd be ready for heaven once 100 hit.
I find it very rude of Sarah to not want the children to grow up together. She wants her first born to have ALL the land and her servant, whom she allowed to lie with Abraham, to receive nothing. I sympathize with Abraham for not knowing what is right to do in that situation. God however knows all and he calmly told Abraham to send Ishmael away. The story of Hagar and her son interests me to know how Ishmael will come in contact later with Abraham's decedents. Is there a symbolism about the bow to have Ishmael become skilled in that area? I think Abraham knew his way around covenants, so when Abimelech was curious about the seven ewe lambs, Abraham knew exactly what he was doing. He learned from God how to honestly make a covenant between fellow men. Something, I think Abraham did not realize he learned from God.
Monday, September 24, 2012
Additional Offering D. Ancient Near Eastern texts
ENUMA ELISH
L.W. King Translator
L.W. King Translator
Parallel to the Creation Account
Identify
the text, source, and OT parallel.
Summarize the ANE parallel and explain how it relates to the OT.
Apsu and Tiamut create the gods. There is some confusion as to who ruled supremely. Tiamut revolted and tried to war agianst Apsu. Apsu goes to look for warriors who would fight against Tiamut and her army. Anu and Nudimmud were sent but both could not withstand her and fell back. Marduk was called next. He took up the winds to bind Tiamut and sliced her in two. Her followers tried to escape but Marduk caught them as well. Marduk is then made greatest of the gods. Mankind is created to worship him and to reside over the earth.
This text is known to parallel the creation account. The beginning was very confusing for me with all the different names and creators and gods being created. Then, as they began to fight, it became increasingly more difficult because of who the gods recruited to fight and who was good and who was evil. I can see the parallelism in Eve being the root of the evil along with Tiamut the mother of creation rebelling against all the gods. Also, at the end, Marduk becomes God. He rises up and saves the people from evil. However, they are still under his power so not equal. The earth and heavens and plants and beings are created after the "great sin" in the Enuma Elish. The humans are created to serve the gods and Marduk.
There is a lot of repetition and imagery, just as in the Hebrew Bible. The order and obviously the greater beings are drastically different.
The Enuma Elish relates to the Old Testament in terms of power being given. When someone rises up to deliver people from oppression or sin, they become prophets or greater beings. In the Hebrew creation account, however, God already existed and he had to break down the human race. He took away their power instead of restoring it.
I'm sorry this is not very long. The message of the Enuma Elish was very confusing because it seemed to pertain to a whole different religion. I could not keep up with all the names and actions happening. Especially because the original text is not all there. There are major parts that are unreadable that may be very influential to the true meaning.
Apsu and Tiamut create the gods. There is some confusion as to who ruled supremely. Tiamut revolted and tried to war agianst Apsu. Apsu goes to look for warriors who would fight against Tiamut and her army. Anu and Nudimmud were sent but both could not withstand her and fell back. Marduk was called next. He took up the winds to bind Tiamut and sliced her in two. Her followers tried to escape but Marduk caught them as well. Marduk is then made greatest of the gods. Mankind is created to worship him and to reside over the earth.
This text is known to parallel the creation account. The beginning was very confusing for me with all the different names and creators and gods being created. Then, as they began to fight, it became increasingly more difficult because of who the gods recruited to fight and who was good and who was evil. I can see the parallelism in Eve being the root of the evil along with Tiamut the mother of creation rebelling against all the gods. Also, at the end, Marduk becomes God. He rises up and saves the people from evil. However, they are still under his power so not equal. The earth and heavens and plants and beings are created after the "great sin" in the Enuma Elish. The humans are created to serve the gods and Marduk.
There is a lot of repetition and imagery, just as in the Hebrew Bible. The order and obviously the greater beings are drastically different.
The Enuma Elish relates to the Old Testament in terms of power being given. When someone rises up to deliver people from oppression or sin, they become prophets or greater beings. In the Hebrew creation account, however, God already existed and he had to break down the human race. He took away their power instead of restoring it.
I'm sorry this is not very long. The message of the Enuma Elish was very confusing because it seemed to pertain to a whole different religion. I could not keep up with all the names and actions happening. Especially because the original text is not all there. There are major parts that are unreadable that may be very influential to the true meaning.
Oxford 4-11
Cain's offering was rejected because he did not offer his first fruits to God. Able gave the fattest of his flock that he had tended to since birth. God's question to Cain makes me laugh because to God, giving of the first fruits should be instinctive for his followers. They should want to follow him. So when he asks Cain why are you sad, to me it is a joke against Cain. God knows the truth and whatever Cain replies will be a lame excuse towards God. The imagery of Able's blood crying out to God is so powerful to me. Is this what happens when people today are murdered? Does their blood cry out to God and does he lead people to them?
I want to know why God had mercy on Cain to put the curse (if anyone tries to kill him they will be harmed instead) upon him? Was God proving to Cain that he is not evil but just? A man with such a curse I would not picture as happy, but Cain gets married, how did his wife feel about all the moving around? Also did Cain move around month to month or year to year or decades to decades?
In class we talked about the different genealogies of Cain and Seth. The names are very similar and each is probably missing a few generations, a theological significance that is to be read with the story. But, Cain's lineage is in no likeness of God. Seth was blessed to surpass his eldest and his lineage was formed in the likeness of God.
One of our assignments was to compare the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Noah Flood Account. The results are here.
In many of the fiction books I read, especially the Mortal Instruments , there is mention of Nephilim and I find it interesting that the name might have started in the Bible. I have always thought of them as superior beings and that's how they can be interpreted: part angel part human. I love connections to modern books that can be found in the Bible!! The Nephilim might have been the bases for God destroying Man in the flood.
Thinking of God's covenant the rainbow makes me smile when I see a rainbow when it rains. Does God make it rain when he is angry and a rainbow when he realizes he cannot get carried away? Why did God feel it was okay to destroy the Earth once but never again? Is he certain that humans will never become as vulgar or disobedient as they once were? After working in the library with a very learned source, I came to know that some people really do believe that God plans for everything in our lives to happen.
The second part of chapter nine is a little confusing to me, with the cloak and curse. Apparently there are many different views as to why Noah cursed Canaan, but for me it is not so important except for the descendants later in life. Are we a part of one of these people? Or are we all from Abraham? Can we be from one of the people that is not mentioned in the Bible?
Everyone was spread among the earth!
But not...As the people started to build the Tower of Babel to reach into the heavens, God quickly spread them apart, like ants scattered. It reads they would be able to do anything, nothing would be impossible if they continued to be of one nation. This is a reoccurring theme. Why is God so nervous about man achieving things? What have we NOT achieved today that he has kept us from accomplishing?
I want to know why God had mercy on Cain to put the curse (if anyone tries to kill him they will be harmed instead) upon him? Was God proving to Cain that he is not evil but just? A man with such a curse I would not picture as happy, but Cain gets married, how did his wife feel about all the moving around? Also did Cain move around month to month or year to year or decades to decades?
In class we talked about the different genealogies of Cain and Seth. The names are very similar and each is probably missing a few generations, a theological significance that is to be read with the story. But, Cain's lineage is in no likeness of God. Seth was blessed to surpass his eldest and his lineage was formed in the likeness of God.
One of our assignments was to compare the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Noah Flood Account. The results are here.
In many of the fiction books I read, especially the Mortal Instruments , there is mention of Nephilim and I find it interesting that the name might have started in the Bible. I have always thought of them as superior beings and that's how they can be interpreted: part angel part human. I love connections to modern books that can be found in the Bible!! The Nephilim might have been the bases for God destroying Man in the flood.
Thinking of God's covenant the rainbow makes me smile when I see a rainbow when it rains. Does God make it rain when he is angry and a rainbow when he realizes he cannot get carried away? Why did God feel it was okay to destroy the Earth once but never again? Is he certain that humans will never become as vulgar or disobedient as they once were? After working in the library with a very learned source, I came to know that some people really do believe that God plans for everything in our lives to happen.
The second part of chapter nine is a little confusing to me, with the cloak and curse. Apparently there are many different views as to why Noah cursed Canaan, but for me it is not so important except for the descendants later in life. Are we a part of one of these people? Or are we all from Abraham? Can we be from one of the people that is not mentioned in the Bible?
Everyone was spread among the earth!
But not...As the people started to build the Tower of Babel to reach into the heavens, God quickly spread them apart, like ants scattered. It reads they would be able to do anything, nothing would be impossible if they continued to be of one nation. This is a reoccurring theme. Why is God so nervous about man achieving things? What have we NOT achieved today that he has kept us from accomplishing?
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Additional Offerings E. Apocryphal Books: Susanna
Apocryphal
Books. Identify the book, summarize its
content, and evaluate the book’s value to Christian readers (particularly to
Protestants who generally do not read Apocrypha).
In the book of Susanna, the wealthy man Joacim has a wife by the name of Susanna. Susanna was pure in heart and feared the Lord since childhood. She was very beautiful and was lusted after by two elders that were staying in her husband's welcoming home. The elders, seeing both "their lust was inflamed" towards Susanna (1.8), devised a plan to force her to sleep with them; threatening, "witness against thee, that a young man was with the (1.21)" if she did not lie with them. Susanna contemplated the concequenses, and chose not to "sin in the sight of the Lord (1.23)." Carrying out their plan, the elders gathered the town and tried to prove Susanna an adultress, a sentence of death. The elders thought they had succeeded. However, God "raised up the holy spirit" of Daniel to speak in favor of Susanna (1.45). Daniel devised a plan and "convicted them of false witness by their own mouth (1.61)." Susanna was saved! and Daniel beheld a "great reputation."
I feel this is a very influential book towards Christians and Protestants. The act of abused authority and false convictions is becoming increasingly common. Therefore, this story provides strength and comfort to the pressured individuals to know that God will hear their cry and deliver them from evil. If we continue to trust in the Lord, not compromising our faith, then God will show us mercy. I do not know if there is a similar story in the Protestant Bible already, but I feel this would make a wise addition. It will not jeapordize God's character because God aided Susanna instead of letting the corrupt elders get away with their crime.
The effect on Protestants who have not read this book might be the cause of so many young girls and boys not telling any one when they were sexually abused. The girls or boys do not have the knowledge that someone will always be on their side, just as Daniel advocated Susanna's innocence. This lesson should be taught in Sunday School to allow the younger generations to know it is okay to cry out for help as Susanna did to the Lord.
In the book of Susanna, the wealthy man Joacim has a wife by the name of Susanna. Susanna was pure in heart and feared the Lord since childhood. She was very beautiful and was lusted after by two elders that were staying in her husband's welcoming home. The elders, seeing both "their lust was inflamed" towards Susanna (1.8), devised a plan to force her to sleep with them; threatening, "witness against thee, that a young man was with the (1.21)" if she did not lie with them. Susanna contemplated the concequenses, and chose not to "sin in the sight of the Lord (1.23)." Carrying out their plan, the elders gathered the town and tried to prove Susanna an adultress, a sentence of death. The elders thought they had succeeded. However, God "raised up the holy spirit" of Daniel to speak in favor of Susanna (1.45). Daniel devised a plan and "convicted them of false witness by their own mouth (1.61)." Susanna was saved! and Daniel beheld a "great reputation."
I feel this is a very influential book towards Christians and Protestants. The act of abused authority and false convictions is becoming increasingly common. Therefore, this story provides strength and comfort to the pressured individuals to know that God will hear their cry and deliver them from evil. If we continue to trust in the Lord, not compromising our faith, then God will show us mercy. I do not know if there is a similar story in the Protestant Bible already, but I feel this would make a wise addition. It will not jeapordize God's character because God aided Susanna instead of letting the corrupt elders get away with their crime.
The effect on Protestants who have not read this book might be the cause of so many young girls and boys not telling any one when they were sexually abused. The girls or boys do not have the knowledge that someone will always be on their side, just as Daniel advocated Susanna's innocence. This lesson should be taught in Sunday School to allow the younger generations to know it is okay to cry out for help as Susanna did to the Lord.
Friday, September 21, 2012
Oxford Genesis 1-3
When read closely, I found there were many things in the creation story that my Sunday school class had left out. Though it was healthy for me then as a child, now I must broaden my ideas about how creation really took place.
In class I learned that Gen 1 is the bases for Judaism and Gen 2-3 is the bases for Christians. The writer's world was much different than ours is now, scientifically and morally. Therefore, I must read the text through the author's eyes, the way they would have interpreted the world.
Verse 2 already reveals something I had never thought of: something was in existence before God created "Earth."
2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. -NKJ
I had originally believed that there really was a flash of light and BOOM, God created the planet earth. However, as seen here that's not the case. It presents a question as to how that earth came to be. If the earth was already formed, were the other planets already there as well? Is God simply waiting to populate them? Dr. Pigott mentioned that the word "Spirit" in this translation was added by the Christians to interweave the Holy Trinity. But the original translation can mean many other things such as wind, breath, etc. The Hebrew phrase is ruach Elohim. Elohim meaning "of God." I love the meaning breath because I can picture God's presence and His word being spoken into the earth.
Verse 5 creates a separation from the believe of mythological gods to one all-powerful God.
5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day. -NKJ
God has only created day and night, not the sun. This means the author has centered on God as the center of light and not, as some believed, the mythological god Apollo. The days are connected by God's light in the beginning and not run on a solar time. I think this is very interesting and very important. God is trying to win over the hearts of man who have believed other religions. Therefore, he must separate himself and define who he is and what he stands for. Being light, the symbol of good, he connects to the people through something they see everyday. His hope is for others to see the light and want to do good.
I enjoy the repetition of the endings in each paragraph: And God saw that it was good. 13 So the evening and the morning were the third day -NKJ
This consistency reaches out to me that I can always trust God to be there. He covers every aspect of the world in chapter one, seeing all as being good. He will forever look to me and say "She is Good." It creates a personal goal for me to continue that love and faith he has in me.
God allows the earth to put forth the vegetation. I think this is important to mention because it gives some individuality to the earth. God did not create directly each blade of grass, but let the earth grow to its fullest by what God provided it with. He was able to nurture the ground and give it hope to create something to please him. The thought can transfer to humans. We have free will to choose God. He gave us gifts to use for him, producing pleasing sights, or we could use them for evil and create what would symbolize thorns.
It is so encouraging to know that from the beginning, we were created in God's likeness. 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
There is so much that I could say to describe my gratitude but putting thankfulness to God in words is really difficult. So, I shall be content with saying that I do love the fact that in me is Him. Something interesting that we talked about in class is how only humanity is made in God's image. The animals of the earth are not. We are the children of God who preside over the earth.
On the subject of dominion, the Biblical text does not mean what most people think: ruling, powerful, authority. While we do have some authority, we are not to be tyrants over the animals but servants. Justice and righteousness should be the focus of our leadership.
Chapter 2 includes a second creation account that most people think is a completely separate account. HERE are my thoughts on the subject and a little comparison of both. The ending of Chapter two is my favorite because it talks about marriage, and of course as I get older in life I look forward to being married and having a husband. 24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. -NKJ
Becoming one is such a powerful image that can be interpreted multiple ways, companionship being one. The Hebrew word for woman (Ishshah) is part of Man (Ish), they took the symbolism and continued it into their language.
Chapter 3:
After reading this chapter, I came to realize many of the ideas I thought about the "Fall" are not true. First, the serpent is not associated with evil. The mention of the word isn't even in the text. Secondly, Adam was "with her" meaning Eve when she partook of the fruit. This means that he stood by and watched her sin and followed suit. John Milton makes a case that he did so out of love for he did not want her to sin and die alone. This is wrong. If Adam had loved her truly, then he would have prevented her from sinning. He should have stopped her from eating the fruit. Thirdly, the serpent may have not been originally on its belly because only AFTER he's cursed does God say, "upon your belly you shall go (3.14)." Lastly, 22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— -NKJ
This quote states that the only thing keeping man from being like God was eternal life, immortality. That's a scary thought. I would never want the world to be run by selfish humans. Luckily, God sent Adam and Eve out of the garden to till the ground. I can understand why God did this, but it makes me wonder what he was thinking putting the trees so close to human grasp. What if they had chosen immortality instead of knowledge? Would our world be as it is today? Or was knowledge the only thing that allows sin? If you do not know you are sinning, can we call it sin?
In class I learned that Gen 1 is the bases for Judaism and Gen 2-3 is the bases for Christians. The writer's world was much different than ours is now, scientifically and morally. Therefore, I must read the text through the author's eyes, the way they would have interpreted the world.
Verse 2 already reveals something I had never thought of: something was in existence before God created "Earth."
2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. -NKJ
I had originally believed that there really was a flash of light and BOOM, God created the planet earth. However, as seen here that's not the case. It presents a question as to how that earth came to be. If the earth was already formed, were the other planets already there as well? Is God simply waiting to populate them? Dr. Pigott mentioned that the word "Spirit" in this translation was added by the Christians to interweave the Holy Trinity. But the original translation can mean many other things such as wind, breath, etc. The Hebrew phrase is ruach Elohim. Elohim meaning "of God." I love the meaning breath because I can picture God's presence and His word being spoken into the earth.
Verse 5 creates a separation from the believe of mythological gods to one all-powerful God.
5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day. -NKJ
God has only created day and night, not the sun. This means the author has centered on God as the center of light and not, as some believed, the mythological god Apollo. The days are connected by God's light in the beginning and not run on a solar time. I think this is very interesting and very important. God is trying to win over the hearts of man who have believed other religions. Therefore, he must separate himself and define who he is and what he stands for. Being light, the symbol of good, he connects to the people through something they see everyday. His hope is for others to see the light and want to do good.
I enjoy the repetition of the endings in each paragraph: And God saw that it was good. 13 So the evening and the morning were the third day -NKJ
This consistency reaches out to me that I can always trust God to be there. He covers every aspect of the world in chapter one, seeing all as being good. He will forever look to me and say "She is Good." It creates a personal goal for me to continue that love and faith he has in me.
God allows the earth to put forth the vegetation. I think this is important to mention because it gives some individuality to the earth. God did not create directly each blade of grass, but let the earth grow to its fullest by what God provided it with. He was able to nurture the ground and give it hope to create something to please him. The thought can transfer to humans. We have free will to choose God. He gave us gifts to use for him, producing pleasing sights, or we could use them for evil and create what would symbolize thorns.
It is so encouraging to know that from the beginning, we were created in God's likeness. 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
There is so much that I could say to describe my gratitude but putting thankfulness to God in words is really difficult. So, I shall be content with saying that I do love the fact that in me is Him. Something interesting that we talked about in class is how only humanity is made in God's image. The animals of the earth are not. We are the children of God who preside over the earth.
On the subject of dominion, the Biblical text does not mean what most people think: ruling, powerful, authority. While we do have some authority, we are not to be tyrants over the animals but servants. Justice and righteousness should be the focus of our leadership.
Chapter 2 includes a second creation account that most people think is a completely separate account. HERE are my thoughts on the subject and a little comparison of both. The ending of Chapter two is my favorite because it talks about marriage, and of course as I get older in life I look forward to being married and having a husband. 24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. -NKJ
Becoming one is such a powerful image that can be interpreted multiple ways, companionship being one. The Hebrew word for woman (Ishshah) is part of Man (Ish), they took the symbolism and continued it into their language.
Chapter 3:
After reading this chapter, I came to realize many of the ideas I thought about the "Fall" are not true. First, the serpent is not associated with evil. The mention of the word isn't even in the text. Secondly, Adam was "with her" meaning Eve when she partook of the fruit. This means that he stood by and watched her sin and followed suit. John Milton makes a case that he did so out of love for he did not want her to sin and die alone. This is wrong. If Adam had loved her truly, then he would have prevented her from sinning. He should have stopped her from eating the fruit. Thirdly, the serpent may have not been originally on its belly because only AFTER he's cursed does God say, "upon your belly you shall go (3.14)." Lastly, 22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— -NKJ
This quote states that the only thing keeping man from being like God was eternal life, immortality. That's a scary thought. I would never want the world to be run by selfish humans. Luckily, God sent Adam and Eve out of the garden to till the ground. I can understand why God did this, but it makes me wonder what he was thinking putting the trees so close to human grasp. What if they had chosen immortality instead of knowledge? Would our world be as it is today? Or was knowledge the only thing that allows sin? If you do not know you are sinning, can we call it sin?
Monday, September 17, 2012
Additional Offerings F. Numbers
Aaron and Miriam’s Complaint (ch.
12):
They were upset that Moses had
married a Cushite. Miriam and Aaron were
predominant people in the Israelites travels, and when Zipporah died, Miriam
thought she would have more influence over Moses. It was an illegitimate complaint because
Aaron and Miriam were concerned only with power, not necessarily God’s
will. When confronted, Moses does
nothing. God “suddenly (12.4)” takes
over by directly calling Aaron and Miriam out on the offense. God explains that He speaks to Moses “face to
face – clearly, not in riddles (12.8)” so that nothing may be
misunderstood. He tells them if they
doubt Moses, they doubt Him. When done
speaking, God punishes Miriam, the instigator, with leprosy for seven days, so
that she may live in shame. I think God
responded so harshly to warn the Israelites not to question his judgment. If the people did not have faith in their
present leaders, they would certainly lose faith in God. Therefore, God had Miriam be punished
severely for her doubt towards Moses in order to protect the actions of
God. If Moses did a small act, like
marriage, against God’s will, the people would have been less likely to trust
him during more stressful times.
Complaint
about food (21:4-9):
The
Israelites were complaining to God and Moses that they had led them through the
desert, around Edom, with no food or water.
This is an illegitimate complaint because the people have been liberated
from oppression by very odd means. They
should be accustomed to God telling Moses to go odd ways. Edom might have been filled with more danger
than the desert. Moses, I feel, internally
agrees with the Israelites but not so much as to speak against God. Therefore, he prays to God for the people
because he is able to feel their pain and confusion. God responds by sending poisonous snakes to
bite and potentially kill the Israelites.
I wouldn’t be surprised if those who died were at the root of the
complaining. After Moses prayed for
their aid, God had him “make a poisonous serpent and set it on a pole
(21.8).” When the people looked upon it
they would be saved from the poison. I
believe God did this to make the Israelites look up. Literally, towards the sky were God resided
and not on the ground and desert that they so detested. He had to make the punishment severe or else
the Israelites would complain more and more about miniscule problems. Though they complained anyway, God had them
look up to remember who brought them from Egypt and who will lead them to the
promise land.
Additional Offering C. Articles
Time Magazine put out a whole cover story on the Dead Sea Scrolls, and I am in the process of gaining access to that, but for now I read a short article about the authors of the Scrolls.
Scholar Claims Dead Sea Scrolls 'Authors' Never Existed
Rachel Elior argues that the author of the Dead Sea Scrolls continues to be unknown, but in particular it is not the Essenes, to whom most scholars give credit. She claims the Scrolls do not mention this group of "Jews," adding also that they lived in contradiction, celibacy, to Judaic exhortation to "go forth and multiply." James Charlesworth, a director of the Dead Sea Scrolls project at Princeton Theological Seminary and an expert on Josephus, rebuttals that the community's name is not explicitly stated but mentioned as "men of holiness" or "sons of light." Elior blames the misunderstanding on Flavius Josephus, an ancient historian, who's articles were the bases for fact. The article does not support one side or the other and research is still to be done.
The article presents both sides of the argument of whether the Essenes wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, but it does not give a point of view to a source that supports multiple authors. Scholars today continue to study the authors of many of the accepted religious texts in the Bible, so to assume from one fact that the Essenes were not the writers is poor judgement. Elior takes a literal side to the Dead Sea Scrolls when she says there is no mention of the Essenes. Charlesworth had a more broad acceptance when he proposed the authors were hinted at. Historians, whether in the Bible or high school textbooks, all have bias. History is written by the survivors. We cannot expect the authors to do as they do in present time writing: written by... Their culture was much different than it is today. The article's description of what Elior believes is vague. They ask, "Who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls?" and the next line states that Elior believes the Essenes were a decendent of a tribe. It has nothing to do with the authors of the Scrolls; it tries to decredit the Essenes, not propose another source. Philo and Pliny the Elder are then thrown in at the end of the article as men who knew of the Essenes, when previously Elior stated they did not exist.
Thought the article focuses on one aspect of the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls to keep things simple, there is not enough explanation. From being in Old Testament Survey only three weeks, I can say confidently that the authors of many Biblical texts are unknown, but that they do not matter to the message.
Tim McGirk, Jerusalem
March 16, 2009
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1885421,00.html#ixzz26lfrsOEN
Scholar Claims Dead Sea Scrolls 'Authors' Never Existed
Rachel Elior argues that the author of the Dead Sea Scrolls continues to be unknown, but in particular it is not the Essenes, to whom most scholars give credit. She claims the Scrolls do not mention this group of "Jews," adding also that they lived in contradiction, celibacy, to Judaic exhortation to "go forth and multiply." James Charlesworth, a director of the Dead Sea Scrolls project at Princeton Theological Seminary and an expert on Josephus, rebuttals that the community's name is not explicitly stated but mentioned as "men of holiness" or "sons of light." Elior blames the misunderstanding on Flavius Josephus, an ancient historian, who's articles were the bases for fact. The article does not support one side or the other and research is still to be done.
The article presents both sides of the argument of whether the Essenes wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, but it does not give a point of view to a source that supports multiple authors. Scholars today continue to study the authors of many of the accepted religious texts in the Bible, so to assume from one fact that the Essenes were not the writers is poor judgement. Elior takes a literal side to the Dead Sea Scrolls when she says there is no mention of the Essenes. Charlesworth had a more broad acceptance when he proposed the authors were hinted at. Historians, whether in the Bible or high school textbooks, all have bias. History is written by the survivors. We cannot expect the authors to do as they do in present time writing: written by... Their culture was much different than it is today. The article's description of what Elior believes is vague. They ask, "Who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls?" and the next line states that Elior believes the Essenes were a decendent of a tribe. It has nothing to do with the authors of the Scrolls; it tries to decredit the Essenes, not propose another source. Philo and Pliny the Elder are then thrown in at the end of the article as men who knew of the Essenes, when previously Elior stated they did not exist.
Thought the article focuses on one aspect of the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls to keep things simple, there is not enough explanation. From being in Old Testament Survey only three weeks, I can say confidently that the authors of many Biblical texts are unknown, but that they do not matter to the message.
Tim McGirk, Jerusalem
March 16, 2009
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1885421,00.html#ixzz26lfrsOEN
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Oxford pg 3-7; online text pg 20-21
My mom loves reading the dictionary. At first I thought it was weird, but now an English major I find the dictionary interesting. The exact meanings of words can end up being something you had never thought about that word meaning. Words we use every day could be pronounced differently and have a second meaning you never knew about. It is very interesting. For Genesis I always thought it meant "beginning," but it's actually "story of." The meaning changes my way of interpreting the text. In the Oxford, the author says Genesis means"origin" so maybe it's the origin of generations?
Author: Not until the Greco-Roman period did the thought of Moses being the writer of Genesis; therefore, it is not necessarily true. Many problems have arose calling Moses the author, so I do not take too much mind power contemplating the authorship. I feel anonymous is better because it encompasses the feeling of all the Hebrews, not a specific person. Sometimes I feel if the book is written by a righteous man then I am intimidated to understand the lesson, thinking I will never be at the relationship they are at with God. Anonymous makes it easier to connect with.
Major Emphasis: Describes the creation of the world and humanity, the disruption created by human choice, and the subsequent dispersal of humanity over the face of the known world.
I think it is important, just as Pigott said, to view what the Bible is saying through the eyes of the Hebrew people. We cannot have a modern mind-set when reading the Old Testament because that's not how, nor who, it was written for. The facts they know are not what we know now: Earth being round, the Holy Spirit, word meanings, etc. Because the creation theory was written on these terms, I think the focus should not be on how God created the world but on the fact that it was Him alone. 
"And God said, 'Let Us make humanity in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.'" Gen. 1:26
Author: Not until the Greco-Roman period did the thought of Moses being the writer of Genesis; therefore, it is not necessarily true. Many problems have arose calling Moses the author, so I do not take too much mind power contemplating the authorship. I feel anonymous is better because it encompasses the feeling of all the Hebrews, not a specific person. Sometimes I feel if the book is written by a righteous man then I am intimidated to understand the lesson, thinking I will never be at the relationship they are at with God. Anonymous makes it easier to connect with.
Major Emphasis: Describes the creation of the world and humanity, the disruption created by human choice, and the subsequent dispersal of humanity over the face of the known world.
We discussed in class about this diagram and I think it is so cool! The way that they thought the sky actually opened up to produce rain was very clever, knowing that all the science they had was from observation. I wonder if, when they buried their dead in the ground, they thought the bodies fell through.
The online text says the "Adam's Family." That makes me think of the old TV show and how different they actually are, or if I am missing a connection to the Bible in the show.
The idea that God created humans through Him makes my life so much more meaningful. People should live with that information every day and know they are special individually. It is an honor to be mentioned in the creation theory because God found us important, not simply laborers of his fields.
Interpretations: I find it extremely rare yet good that all of the different sects of religious groups were able to accept Genesis as an authoritative text. Though I can understand how they would pick and choose stories to match their individual practices, the main message continued through out all religions. The validity of Genesis was never tested until Modern Science. I believe that we should not set out to prove or disprove the Bible. If something is unbelievable then we must judge for ourselves whether it is a true story or whether God gave us the message through fiction.
I hope I will be able to see the parallel stories and the interwoven cultures that are in the stories of Genesis. Creation has always been a one time thing for me, so beginning with my beginning is a good way to start.
I hope I will be able to see the parallel stories and the interwoven cultures that are in the stories of Genesis. Creation has always been a one time thing for me, so beginning with my beginning is a good way to start.
Monday, September 10, 2012
Oxford pg 3-6
Introduction to the Pentateuch
These first five books UNIFY the traditions of Jews and Christians. There are many things that do not make the Pentateuch a unified book. The five books are independent. However, it's second name "Torah" meaning Law or Instruction does unify the books' meaning.
I always felt that the Old Testament was not of much use to our day in age because it contained many practices that we do not have to follow since Christ came to Earth. But knowing that the people of the OT used the scripture as the way to have a relationship with God, makes my relationship with him so much greater. I do not have to perform sacrifices or cleans myself when I sin. The struggles the OT people had to deal with gives me strength in my daily walk.
This book states, "with the rise of rationalism." That phrase is ironic to me. Having taken psychology and knowing why people rationalize, makes me not want to believe any of the ideas that leaders have come up with. They are trying to rationalize something that can probably never be comprehended. Pigott has pointed out a few contradictions in the Bible to prove that sometimes when we say the Bible never contradicts itself, we are wrong. This grows on the idea that though the OT has contradictions, its validity should not waiver.
The different sources that created the Bible used different styles because they are different people. I am okay with that. I have no preconceptions about Moses being the sole author of the Torah. For others, they might have serious attachments and that's okay, too.
I feel we should focus on both views of the Old Testament. Not being lukewarm, it is important to look at scripture through different perspectives. Individual writers brought a specific meaning to one book, but overall, God brought a meaning to the entire Torah. Looking at a detailed to "big-picture" perspective is not a bad idea. I believe that sticking with one way or the other might lead to misinterpretation.
These first five books UNIFY the traditions of Jews and Christians. There are many things that do not make the Pentateuch a unified book. The five books are independent. However, it's second name "Torah" meaning Law or Instruction does unify the books' meaning.
I always felt that the Old Testament was not of much use to our day in age because it contained many practices that we do not have to follow since Christ came to Earth. But knowing that the people of the OT used the scripture as the way to have a relationship with God, makes my relationship with him so much greater. I do not have to perform sacrifices or cleans myself when I sin. The struggles the OT people had to deal with gives me strength in my daily walk.
This book states, "with the rise of rationalism." That phrase is ironic to me. Having taken psychology and knowing why people rationalize, makes me not want to believe any of the ideas that leaders have come up with. They are trying to rationalize something that can probably never be comprehended. Pigott has pointed out a few contradictions in the Bible to prove that sometimes when we say the Bible never contradicts itself, we are wrong. This grows on the idea that though the OT has contradictions, its validity should not waiver.
The different sources that created the Bible used different styles because they are different people. I am okay with that. I have no preconceptions about Moses being the sole author of the Torah. For others, they might have serious attachments and that's okay, too.
I feel we should focus on both views of the Old Testament. Not being lukewarm, it is important to look at scripture through different perspectives. Individual writers brought a specific meaning to one book, but overall, God brought a meaning to the entire Torah. Looking at a detailed to "big-picture" perspective is not a bad idea. I believe that sticking with one way or the other might lead to misinterpretation.
September 8th Response
In regard to studying the Greek and Hebrew culture to try and figure out why their differences in the Bible are so great, we had a discussion in class that clarified a lot.
I learned that there were two original "Bibles" but began in different regions. The Egypt-Palestine region began with the 15 extra books, it was later called the Apocrypha. This Bible became the Christian's base. The Babylonian region obtained a Bible that did not include the extra 15 books, for whatever reason. This translation became the Jewish Bible. Way down the road because of translations and doctrine reformation, it became known to these separate groups the difference in text. The Jews rejected the Christian translation, not because of context, but because they were Christians. I am leaving out many important things, but the result of reformation was the elimination of the Apocrypha out of the Christian Bible in the 18th century.
I have never known these extra 15 books existed. To have something that was a part of Christian history be removed only in the last few centuries, tells me that it was very important to God's followers at one time and that I should study it to decide why and if the books should be removed. I don't know how many times I've said that, only because I am excited that there was a missing piece of the puzzle to my faith and I just found it.
I learned that there were two original "Bibles" but began in different regions. The Egypt-Palestine region began with the 15 extra books, it was later called the Apocrypha. This Bible became the Christian's base. The Babylonian region obtained a Bible that did not include the extra 15 books, for whatever reason. This translation became the Jewish Bible. Way down the road because of translations and doctrine reformation, it became known to these separate groups the difference in text. The Jews rejected the Christian translation, not because of context, but because they were Christians. I am leaving out many important things, but the result of reformation was the elimination of the Apocrypha out of the Christian Bible in the 18th century.
I have never known these extra 15 books existed. To have something that was a part of Christian history be removed only in the last few centuries, tells me that it was very important to God's followers at one time and that I should study it to decide why and if the books should be removed. I don't know how many times I've said that, only because I am excited that there was a missing piece of the puzzle to my faith and I just found it.
Online 17-19
Traditions such as Passover and sermons in the New Testament are modeled after Old Testament writings. I find it interesting that these first books of the Bible, the Torah, are so widely accepted. There is little or no debate as to whether the books are truth or of their origins. Why has no one questioned these books versus others? Is it because they focus on the strict law and are not "stories" or parables? The definition of Torah to mean instruction is pleasing to me that the name can reflect its contents so readily.
When coming from God, most things are never definite. Thus, Moses might have written all five books of the Torah, but no one will ever really know. The important thing I feel is to read the books with a mind set that allows the meaning to be one thing if Moses wrote it, and another if he did not. This way we won't be blinded or confused if a passage arises that may be in contradiction to Mosaic teachings.
These are the answers that I have come to find. When I originally saw this I wasn't going to complete it because I thought to myself, "I can't think of one thing, without reading the Bible, that could support Moses' side, much less deny him authorship."
When coming from God, most things are never definite. Thus, Moses might have written all five books of the Torah, but no one will ever really know. The important thing I feel is to read the books with a mind set that allows the meaning to be one thing if Moses wrote it, and another if he did not. This way we won't be blinded or confused if a passage arises that may be in contradiction to Mosaic teachings.
These are the answers that I have come to find. When I originally saw this I wasn't going to complete it because I thought to myself, "I can't think of one thing, without reading the Bible, that could support Moses' side, much less deny him authorship."
| Deuteronomy 34:1-9 ...States Moses died after seeing the land God promised to Abraham. He was buried. However it says that Joshua was "full of the spirit of wisdom", can this mean that all Moses knew was transferred to Joshua? Therefore, in directly Moses could have written through Joshua? | | ||||
| ||||||
| Num. 12:3; Deut. 34:10-12 You can be humble but still be great. Humble means you do not flaunt your talents but subtly use them to help others. Moses has the ability to do both. I do not see how this denies Moses' ability to write all 5 books. | | ||||
| ||||||
| Compare Gen. 12:10-20 with Gen. 20:1-18 and Gen. 26:1-11 I don't know what Moses has to do with these scriptures either, though they were quite interesting... | | ||||
| ||||||
| Compare Gen. 6:19-20 with 7:2-3 Oh, God only sent Noah on the Arc so how could Moses have survived. However, God did say that he gave Moses insight, so maybe there is relation between Noah's family and Moses. |
As has been stated, there are many different types of genres and if Moses or God felt it would be more meaningful or more clear to the people to write in third-person, then that is what was done. I would like to know the year dates between Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Many writers, as they grow older, achieve a maturity or understanding of their writing and that is why the styles or vocabulary may differ. I am not trying to support the claim that Moses did write all the books; I am trying to look at the information with an open mind, stating other possibilities.
I can understand the possibility of Moses combining the books, and personally agree with that. Are the later books in the OT named after their author: Hosea, Jonah, Malachi? If not, that would be in congruence with the Torah. God is able to give one man the knowledge to write five books, but I feel God wanted to have multiple writers, and multiple perspectives, in order for the masses (different people and cultures) to understand. I am not educated enough to know whether Moses had a major hand in the writing of these books, but Wellhausen's idea that Moses was not involved doesn't line up with a majority of thinkers.
I like that critics have decided not to "develop" a hypothetical Torah, and are instead studying the one that came out on top. I feel many theologians will try to make something of a subject that has no basis and no roots. There is no point in studying material that might have never existed except in your mind. Responding to the online text is difficult because the conclusion summed up how I felt about authoritativeness(if that's even a word). It does matter rhetorically who wrote the books, but it also matters rhetorically that the author is still unknown. There can never be absolutes in the Bible because every fact takes a little bit of faith to make them real to us.
Saturday, September 8, 2012
Oxford 1361-67 Apocrypha
After four hours of precious homework, I finally get to start on something entirely NEW! I didn't know these pages were the Apocrypha and I am excited to start reading. Hopefully by the end of the chapter I won't have to look in the book on how to spell Apocrypha...
Definitions
The apocryphal/Deutrocanonical books are those works that were included in the Septuagint (Greek translation of Hebrew Bible) on in Old Latin translations, but are not included in the Hebrew text that forms both the canon for Judaism and the Protestant Old Testament. That was a long definition but I wanted to include it because someone reading may not know and it is good to have a basis for what the next paragraphs will talk about.
"Apocrypha" means hidden things. This definition actually has nothing to do with the books themselves. Only conjecture can be said as to why they were called this. I find that very funny. How can you call something it's literal meaning but the word have nothing to do with the subject at hand? One of the theories to the name is that they were "restricted" books. This is interesting to me because if society actually enforced the restrictions they placed upon different literature we would not have many of the Classics we do today, the Bible included. The word "Deutrocanonical" doesn't even show up on my computer dictionary as I type. It is a Roman Catholic label for a group of books that is parallel to the Apocrypha. So, not much difference in meaning but very different groups that accept them.
Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Canons of the Old Testament
In my English class, we read the General Prologue to The Canterbury Tales. The author, Chaucer, writes a framed story of twenty-two travelers, all from different backgrounds headed to Canterbury. Many of the characters are of religious background or profession. Chaucer includes these characters to satirize them for their misconduct. In reading all the horrible things the "religious" folks were doing, it creates doubt for their rule. The story also includes a poor plowman who is the ideal Christian, not needing greed or pride because he is serving God through his actions. All this to say that many of the churches were responsible for the order and context of our Bibles. If Chaucer saw a need to correct their behavior, what does that say about their decisions on the Holy text? I am such a supporter of the communities coming together to decide what should be included. Just as the poor plowman was a symbol of Christ, the body of a community should worship together under one decision. I am not saying that all churches were corrupt, nor that their decisions on the Bible were wrong, but after my lesson in English it makes me think twice about the early churches and their view points of power.
The Status of the Apocryphal/Deurerocanonical Books in Christianity
In Eastern Churches, a very little distinction was made between the Hebrew canon and additional works. During the late fifth century, the church came together to decide which of these works to declare canonized. They ended up assimilating the "additional works" as canonized. I think this shows that the church and it's people understood that it was okay to regard certain texts as canons because they were always thought to be anyway. It is impressive that the entire Eastern church, so I'm led to believe, agreed upon this assimilation. I think it is also important what the Western Church did. The idea of separating the original texts from the additional ones is a good idea, allowing the people to decide for themselves if they want to take the additional texts as scripture or to simply use them as study material. Having the texts available is better than banning them and saying they have no right to even be studied. Bodenstein is wise with his words regarding the different books (pg1363).
Dutch Bible: "The books which are not in the cannon, that is to say, which one does not find among the Jews in the Hebrew"; Words separating the Apocrypha.
Swiss reformer, Oecolampadius: we do not allow them divine authority with the others.
Historical Background
Many political changes ending with Seleucid in control over Syria, Egypt, and Judah occurred, but the language, Greek, and Hellenistic culture continued. The Jews were at one time pressured by outside forces and outcasted; however, they banned together and revolted, taking back their land until later dates. I find this very comforting. The people of God were able to stand up for their rights and beliefs, and he granted them victory. It gives me strength and hope for the future of America and its citizens who believe in Christ.
Types of Literature
There are different types of generes throughout the Bible and the Apocrypha. Many can be comparred to each other to see a similarity in the books that have been "approved" and those that have been rejected. I understand the difference in fiction and non-fiction, historical and folktale, but I also believe that God is capable of creating anything. No one had seen a real dinosaur from millions of years ago, and bones are continually being found all over the world. That being said, what can stop God from having created a dragon, its bones being scattered, and waiting to be discovered? I believe that everything God created existed at one time, and that everything He said is truth. Whether Jeseus invented a story to help his followers understand a message, that story existed.
Didactic literature: intended to teach.
There is not one full letter in the Hebrew OT, versus the NT where all but one book is a letter. I think this contrast was intended by God to show the people's reaction to his changing, fulfilling doctrine. He had much control over the OT because it was the Law for a majority of his followers, then when Jesus came to Earth the lessons shifted into a futuristic view-point. The Apocrypha does NOT include prophetic texts. This lacking is said to spring from the views of historians. I do not know how I feel about these books not involving the future of the Jews. God set many prophecies so that when Jesus came he could say I have fulfilled all I have promised, an appeal to the Ethos.
New Testament
There are only allusions from the Apocrypha in the New Testament and not direct quotes as appear from the books in the Hebrew OT. This is evidence against calling the Apocrypha "scripture." However, I still believe that you cannot judge the texts until you have read them. Whether they were added before or after certain periods of time does not matter; God is continually at work.
Conclusion
Overall, I learned that there were two separate Bibles in the beginning. The Babylonian Bible because of it's location did NOT include, what would be later known as, the Apocrypha. This first Bible , the main text for the Jews, contined with changes from scribes until the Masoretic Text defined what is scripture. The second known Bible is the Septuagint, the Christian Greek translation, in Egypt and Palestine. Because of it's location, the Apocrypha was originally included in the authoritative texts.
There was much controversy over which Bible was the "original," when indeed both texts are valid.
I believe, though I have yet to study closely and read it, the Apocrypha should have been included in our Bibles today. If it has been in our history for hundreds of years, then why should it not be taught today? Why does the Christian church not mention that such books exist when it is apart of their history?
Definitions
The apocryphal/Deutrocanonical books are those works that were included in the Septuagint (Greek translation of Hebrew Bible) on in Old Latin translations, but are not included in the Hebrew text that forms both the canon for Judaism and the Protestant Old Testament. That was a long definition but I wanted to include it because someone reading may not know and it is good to have a basis for what the next paragraphs will talk about.
"Apocrypha" means hidden things. This definition actually has nothing to do with the books themselves. Only conjecture can be said as to why they were called this. I find that very funny. How can you call something it's literal meaning but the word have nothing to do with the subject at hand? One of the theories to the name is that they were "restricted" books. This is interesting to me because if society actually enforced the restrictions they placed upon different literature we would not have many of the Classics we do today, the Bible included. The word "Deutrocanonical" doesn't even show up on my computer dictionary as I type. It is a Roman Catholic label for a group of books that is parallel to the Apocrypha. So, not much difference in meaning but very different groups that accept them.
Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Canons of the Old Testament
In my English class, we read the General Prologue to The Canterbury Tales. The author, Chaucer, writes a framed story of twenty-two travelers, all from different backgrounds headed to Canterbury. Many of the characters are of religious background or profession. Chaucer includes these characters to satirize them for their misconduct. In reading all the horrible things the "religious" folks were doing, it creates doubt for their rule. The story also includes a poor plowman who is the ideal Christian, not needing greed or pride because he is serving God through his actions. All this to say that many of the churches were responsible for the order and context of our Bibles. If Chaucer saw a need to correct their behavior, what does that say about their decisions on the Holy text? I am such a supporter of the communities coming together to decide what should be included. Just as the poor plowman was a symbol of Christ, the body of a community should worship together under one decision. I am not saying that all churches were corrupt, nor that their decisions on the Bible were wrong, but after my lesson in English it makes me think twice about the early churches and their view points of power.
The Status of the Apocryphal/Deurerocanonical Books in Christianity
In Eastern Churches, a very little distinction was made between the Hebrew canon and additional works. During the late fifth century, the church came together to decide which of these works to declare canonized. They ended up assimilating the "additional works" as canonized. I think this shows that the church and it's people understood that it was okay to regard certain texts as canons because they were always thought to be anyway. It is impressive that the entire Eastern church, so I'm led to believe, agreed upon this assimilation. I think it is also important what the Western Church did. The idea of separating the original texts from the additional ones is a good idea, allowing the people to decide for themselves if they want to take the additional texts as scripture or to simply use them as study material. Having the texts available is better than banning them and saying they have no right to even be studied. Bodenstein is wise with his words regarding the different books (pg1363).
Dutch Bible: "The books which are not in the cannon, that is to say, which one does not find among the Jews in the Hebrew"; Words separating the Apocrypha.
Swiss reformer, Oecolampadius: we do not allow them divine authority with the others.
Historical Background
Many political changes ending with Seleucid in control over Syria, Egypt, and Judah occurred, but the language, Greek, and Hellenistic culture continued. The Jews were at one time pressured by outside forces and outcasted; however, they banned together and revolted, taking back their land until later dates. I find this very comforting. The people of God were able to stand up for their rights and beliefs, and he granted them victory. It gives me strength and hope for the future of America and its citizens who believe in Christ.
Types of Literature
There are different types of generes throughout the Bible and the Apocrypha. Many can be comparred to each other to see a similarity in the books that have been "approved" and those that have been rejected. I understand the difference in fiction and non-fiction, historical and folktale, but I also believe that God is capable of creating anything. No one had seen a real dinosaur from millions of years ago, and bones are continually being found all over the world. That being said, what can stop God from having created a dragon, its bones being scattered, and waiting to be discovered? I believe that everything God created existed at one time, and that everything He said is truth. Whether Jeseus invented a story to help his followers understand a message, that story existed.
Didactic literature: intended to teach.
There is not one full letter in the Hebrew OT, versus the NT where all but one book is a letter. I think this contrast was intended by God to show the people's reaction to his changing, fulfilling doctrine. He had much control over the OT because it was the Law for a majority of his followers, then when Jesus came to Earth the lessons shifted into a futuristic view-point. The Apocrypha does NOT include prophetic texts. This lacking is said to spring from the views of historians. I do not know how I feel about these books not involving the future of the Jews. God set many prophecies so that when Jesus came he could say I have fulfilled all I have promised, an appeal to the Ethos.
New Testament
There are only allusions from the Apocrypha in the New Testament and not direct quotes as appear from the books in the Hebrew OT. This is evidence against calling the Apocrypha "scripture." However, I still believe that you cannot judge the texts until you have read them. Whether they were added before or after certain periods of time does not matter; God is continually at work.
Conclusion
Overall, I learned that there were two separate Bibles in the beginning. The Babylonian Bible because of it's location did NOT include, what would be later known as, the Apocrypha. This first Bible , the main text for the Jews, contined with changes from scribes until the Masoretic Text defined what is scripture. The second known Bible is the Septuagint, the Christian Greek translation, in Egypt and Palestine. Because of it's location, the Apocrypha was originally included in the authoritative texts.
There was much controversy over which Bible was the "original," when indeed both texts are valid.
I believe, though I have yet to study closely and read it, the Apocrypha should have been included in our Bibles today. If it has been in our history for hundreds of years, then why should it not be taught today? Why does the Christian church not mention that such books exist when it is apart of their history?
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Online Text pg 12-15
I. Text and Transmission of the Hebrew Bible
The idea that these people had such an impact over the authoritative and Holy texts astounds me. Just imagine all the things we never caught because the changes were so subtle. I am glad that some of the changes made the Bible easier or more clear to understand. I have always took notations for granted because I never saw a reason to change what I was reading, but I have now learned that notations help us to better understand the original text. Many, many texts have been approved or denied assimilation into the Bible; therefore, notations help to clear up some of the misunderstanding between translations.
The Masoretic Scribes (500-1000 A.D) were of greatest help in allowing common people to be able to read the Bible. They introduced vowels that before were non-existent. Though this was helpful to the society at the time, as Hebrew became a dying language the pronunciation was skewed. I found it so interesting that we have words today such as Jehovah that were NEVER holy names for God. They only came to exist because of mispronunciation and illiteracy of the Hebrew language. They are not true, original names for God. It is a satisfying thought when the Dead Sea Scrolls are found and there were only minor changes made by the Masoretic people. Just think of the total revision that would have had to been made, the hours lost, if the Scrolls had revealed something entirely different. I could not imagine the original texts of books I have read, or texts I have studied, coming to light and being nothing similar of what I had previously learned. The great minds that slaved over these writings died in vain. We won't ever know individuals that worked on our Bible, our most sacred book. I find that very sad. Being a person who finds it comforting to receive praise for my accomplishments, I would not have wanted my name to go to the grave with me as most of these men did.
Given the list of books that almost did not make it into the Old Testament, I am glad that our society is not the ones putting the Bible together. Our separate parties and prideful view points would make it impossible to create a work of literature such as the Bible. The intelligence and patience these ancient people had makes me view my own life and mind. I wonder what my opinion of these books would have been if I had not been familiar with the set Bible already. Would I been willing to allow any book God saw as Holy into the Bible if that meant sexual relations or contradictions in its own text? How these leaders knew what God wanted them to include creates a picture in my mind: a man up at all hours of the night, contemplating the decision; to include or not to include. He falls asleep because of exhaustion and has a dream, in which God shows him the answer. I can only imagine these things happening, but find it extraordinary that they were able to follow God's plan. I believe that God did have a had in creating the book that the entire world would be reading and deciding to follow Him or not. He would not lead us astray with false teachings.
I am super excited to read the Apocrypha! I had never heard of it before and want to make my own decisions whether it should be part of my faith.
The next section might have some repeats of the earlier post because I think I was actually suppose to read this one first but didn't...
II. Structure of the Hebrew Bible
First, I want to know why all the Bibles aren't ordered chronologically. The Hebrew, the original, texts were, so I think it would make sense to continue that. However, I have not read the Bible in its chronological form and do not know how confusing that would be, so I can not complain too much about the subject.
Torah = Law
Nebiim = Prophets
Kethubim = Writings
Again, I love that communities came together to decide which books were to be canonized. I think all of God's word is true, but to decide which is most helpful to them makes it even more personal. I want to study the different cultures of the Hebrew and the Greek to see why they contract the most diverse canons. Differences range from 10-20 books, a significant amount that was left out or adopted. To go from nothing to something or to loose what I have spent a lifetime studying, would be tragic.
Conclusion
I am a note taker, so many of these entries will seem very similar to the actual readings because I haven't quite learned how to journal correctly. I'm going for thorough and personal, and that is a hard subject for me to grasp. As an English major, I have written all my life but most are fictional stories or objective papers; never a personal narrative. Therefore, bear with me as I learn to take these Ancient Scrolls and apply them to my Modern Mind. It might take me to semester, but I hope the journey will last a lifetime.
The idea that these people had such an impact over the authoritative and Holy texts astounds me. Just imagine all the things we never caught because the changes were so subtle. I am glad that some of the changes made the Bible easier or more clear to understand. I have always took notations for granted because I never saw a reason to change what I was reading, but I have now learned that notations help us to better understand the original text. Many, many texts have been approved or denied assimilation into the Bible; therefore, notations help to clear up some of the misunderstanding between translations.
The Masoretic Scribes (500-1000 A.D) were of greatest help in allowing common people to be able to read the Bible. They introduced vowels that before were non-existent. Though this was helpful to the society at the time, as Hebrew became a dying language the pronunciation was skewed. I found it so interesting that we have words today such as Jehovah that were NEVER holy names for God. They only came to exist because of mispronunciation and illiteracy of the Hebrew language. They are not true, original names for God. It is a satisfying thought when the Dead Sea Scrolls are found and there were only minor changes made by the Masoretic people. Just think of the total revision that would have had to been made, the hours lost, if the Scrolls had revealed something entirely different. I could not imagine the original texts of books I have read, or texts I have studied, coming to light and being nothing similar of what I had previously learned. The great minds that slaved over these writings died in vain. We won't ever know individuals that worked on our Bible, our most sacred book. I find that very sad. Being a person who finds it comforting to receive praise for my accomplishments, I would not have wanted my name to go to the grave with me as most of these men did.
Given the list of books that almost did not make it into the Old Testament, I am glad that our society is not the ones putting the Bible together. Our separate parties and prideful view points would make it impossible to create a work of literature such as the Bible. The intelligence and patience these ancient people had makes me view my own life and mind. I wonder what my opinion of these books would have been if I had not been familiar with the set Bible already. Would I been willing to allow any book God saw as Holy into the Bible if that meant sexual relations or contradictions in its own text? How these leaders knew what God wanted them to include creates a picture in my mind: a man up at all hours of the night, contemplating the decision; to include or not to include. He falls asleep because of exhaustion and has a dream, in which God shows him the answer. I can only imagine these things happening, but find it extraordinary that they were able to follow God's plan. I believe that God did have a had in creating the book that the entire world would be reading and deciding to follow Him or not. He would not lead us astray with false teachings.
I am super excited to read the Apocrypha! I had never heard of it before and want to make my own decisions whether it should be part of my faith.
The next section might have some repeats of the earlier post because I think I was actually suppose to read this one first but didn't...
II. Structure of the Hebrew Bible
First, I want to know why all the Bibles aren't ordered chronologically. The Hebrew, the original, texts were, so I think it would make sense to continue that. However, I have not read the Bible in its chronological form and do not know how confusing that would be, so I can not complain too much about the subject.
Torah = Law
Nebiim = Prophets
Kethubim = Writings
Again, I love that communities came together to decide which books were to be canonized. I think all of God's word is true, but to decide which is most helpful to them makes it even more personal. I want to study the different cultures of the Hebrew and the Greek to see why they contract the most diverse canons. Differences range from 10-20 books, a significant amount that was left out or adopted. To go from nothing to something or to loose what I have spent a lifetime studying, would be tragic.
Conclusion
I am a note taker, so many of these entries will seem very similar to the actual readings because I haven't quite learned how to journal correctly. I'm going for thorough and personal, and that is a hard subject for me to grasp. As an English major, I have written all my life but most are fictional stories or objective papers; never a personal narrative. Therefore, bear with me as I learn to take these Ancient Scrolls and apply them to my Modern Mind. It might take me to semester, but I hope the journey will last a lifetime.
Oxford 2185-89
Christian Bibles include New Testament and Jewish Bibles do not. Differences about the contents of the Old Testament.
1. Definitions
a. "Canon" - Greek meaning reed, or stick used for measuring; rule or standard by which things were judged
- Alexandrian grammarians (literary critics) used word for texts that were of importance
- In relation to the Bible, no other text should be considered for study.
b. I don't know much, actually nothing, about the "canons." If God said that these books, these texts, are sufficient to our life, and that we need no other guidance, then why do people try to write other books that have not textual support? Human ideas and perspectives on the Bible have been written since the beginning, but for me, if someone reads the Bible and it brings them closer to God then that interpretation is correct. Definitions have a strong impact on my life, being an English major, and I know that many words have different meanings just as this one, but the importance of that word does not dwindle. The word love does not mean anything less because it can be stretched to mean multiple things to multiple people. I hope I will learn the meaning of the Canons so that their presence will impact my view on their message.
c. It is so fascinating how one word can be transformed from a simple stick to the word of God. Everything God did was for a reason. He can show us that from a stick, a teaching tool, he could teach the world.
2. Hebrew Bible
a. It is debated on how the Hebrew Bible and it's contents were decided, and that many of the sources might be biased on their viewpoints. Taking from what Dr. Pigott said about the Bible being written in different genres, I think it is safe to say that God planned for the gathering of the Hebrew Bible to be unknown. Just as it is unknown how God performs miracles, He does not want us to know everything about how things came to be. We must trust that he gave insight to the right people to give the world His word. Though we do have to look through the text through other's eyes, it will make it easier to understand when I know that many people had different views on how the OT should be formed.
b. "Canon developed over time in stages" Torah or Pentateuch was the first section with 5 books (Ezra 7:14) Followed by Nevi'im ( 8 prophets) and Ketuvim ( 11 writings). These form the TRIPARTITE.
1. Nevi'im: Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings (former prophets) Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and twelve minor prophets Hosea - Malachi (latter prophets).
2. Ketuvium: Psalms, Proverbs, Job, "five scrolls" - Ruth, Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, and Esther-, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles.
The order of some of the books may differ, others have been stable. Not having studied the books closely, I do not know how much the books react to each other or how important the order is to the message they give. I hope to be able to judge for myself after studying if the original order or modern texts give a better understanding of God's plan. I feel so ignorant of all that the Bible has to offer, between history and textual messages. Did God plan for there to be discrepancy or was it deliberate human interference and pride that allowed for the different translations? People could WASTE their life away trying to figure out the order or original texts instead of focusing on the message the books have to bring.
c. Origin - textual evidence for tripartite (luke 24:44), Torah canonized in the PERSIAN Period. One reason I do enjoy studying the history is that many times there are connections in the text that symbolize how the books came to be or their order. THe way the number 22 corresponds with the Hebrew alphabet is a strong case for the OT to include 22 books. God enjoys numbers and the connections that can be made with them.
1. Greek translation of the Bible during second century B.C. - SEPTUAGINT - Bible in 4 parts: Torah, Histories, Poetical and Wisdom, and Prophets.
*Alexandrian canon: four-part, twenty-two-books
*Palestinian canon: tripartite, twenty-four-books
We discussed a little in class that the term "scripture" is still being debated. I did not quite understand what was meant by this. How can you deem something written by God not scripture? Is there a definition of scripture? Webster defines it as "books of the Bible" or "sacred or authoritative texts." So how can there be discrepancy on what God has written? Are there many other scrolls that ancient rabbis did not see as canonized so they are not scripture and we're missing part of God's word? Many questions circle that subject, but I believe that the answer will never be found.
2. As I read, it explains that canonized texts differ from community to community. This fact reinforces the idea, for me, that God's word can be universal. Though some communities may not hold a certain book as prestigious as others, they continue to study His works in hope to SATISFY their community. Just as people in the modern world can write books over a single chapter or book of the Bible, they focus on a central part of the Bible because that's what they feel their community needs.
3. This "flexibility"; however, has damaged the meaning of some texts. Word spelling and order have significantly impacted the way verses are described. Progress towards the original text are being made but it will take time, and who knows how long the verse has been incorrect. This idea of not knowing Hebrew, personally, makes me uncomfortable. I am not able to read the original text so am ignorant of any word meanings that might be skewed. I understand that the original text itself might have been altered, but if that is all that God has left us with then we have no other choice but to believe it.
d. I feel content in letting a scholar or religious leader choose which texts should be Canonized. They're personal opinion might have been mixed in the matter, but I believe that if God wanted a text included or excluded it would have made the list. I thought Canonized and Holy text were the same thing... Still, God put those people in situations that allowed them to emphasize the text.
3. Canonization
a. The Canonization was initiated or accelerated by the destruction of the First Temple in 586 B.C. The final stages of canonization were a reaction to the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 A.D. Israel became the people of the Bible.
b. The books became canonized when the community had already regarded the texts as holy or authoritative, not from high leaders that dictated the decision.
c. Canonization was inclusive: wide genres, ideologies, theologies. Made a point to include many view points from Israel, might have even been contradictory traditions.
d. I like the fact that the community came together to decide what their community felt was valued and important. A sense of brotherhood is present in the Bible, and it is emphasized even by the way God created it. When in a crisis, the people came together to reinstate their values. I feel that is what will happen in the U.S. if tragic strikes us; we will ban together and return to our original roots, remembering what is important. From the second point, I thought it was interesting and good that the community believed the texts to already be authoritative before legally deemed so. This encourages me that even if something is not explicitly told, it may come to pass as something great if I continue to stand up for it. The Israeli people were humans. They made mistakes, but lived through the times of our Lord, and for that I feel they have contributed much to the making of the Bible.
4. The Greek Bible
a. SEPTUAGINT - Greek translation and expansion of the Hebrew Bible, produced in Alexandria, was used as the Bible during the second half of the first century A.D.
Included: historical books and legend, wisdom writings, short works of fiction (novellas), an apocalypse, philosophical diatribe, expansions to Jeremiah/Esther/Daniel/Psalms.
Equivalent of Hebrew Texts.
b. Greeks looked to bring the text closer to Hebrew, taking on disputes between the Christians and the Jews. Therefore, the septuagint is an anthology of translations and revisions.
c. The Bible was broken down in to sections, as leaders saw fit, to give to beginners versus experienced readers. I rather enjoy this and think it was carried on into our modern world because you do not start kindergardener off with a difficult and metaphorical text, they must build their way up. I agree that still today, as was in history, that people do not understand the differences between Jewish and Christian Bibles. They think it is a completely separate thinking. This may be partially true, but only because of the texts. What society READS is what they BELIEVE. You can not have a civilization without literacy nor could you expect it to continue.
d. Reformation thought wanted to dig deeper into the meaning of the Bible in its original language. Jerome kept the Septuagint in a separate section between the OT and NT because he felt they were not scripture because they were not originally Hebrew. I support this decision, as long as the fact that they were not original stays known. When society starts to believe text that has no foundation in the Lord, corruption occurs.
1. Calvinism did not even allow these books.
2. the Anglican church kept some but not all of the extra books, seeing them as "valuable to study" but not to establish doctrine. (p2189 P4end).
As a conclusion, I thought the reading was informational and I hope I continue to remember the work that went into what I am reading today, but also to remember that it has changed. Those changes I can take for the better, or I can choose not to accept them, but I must first learn about each one and understand why they were included or kept out. However, I do strongly believe that God had a had in everything that was written and had a possibility of being in the Bible. I do not believe he would let other humans guide us in the way of life. Though he may have used humans for their mortality, their connection to us universally, but their ideals came from God. Cases against the law of the Jews versus the Christians are many. I hope I will learn through the OT the bases for the arguments and to make my own decision on the correct standings. So much history goes into the OT that to ignore it would mean to miss part of what the Bible is saying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)