We encounter the phrase in the “image of god” in the very first chapter of Genesis on page 1, where it is stated “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him.” There are many different ways this phrase can be interpreted. My way of interpreting this is in more of a symbolic way instead of a literal way such as that god might look like a human. I believe this saying is a veiled astrologically based idea. Vast majority of major religious traditions of antiquity (prior to Christianity) are deeply based in astrological principles, including Judaism (referring to the Kabbalistic tree of life for example). Considering Genesis is the Torah, a piece of Judaic scripture, it would not be implausible that this is indeed an astrologically based creationist reference, and it is actually quite probable when you consider how fundamental astrological ideas are to the Sefer Yetzira (The Book of Creation/Formation, the Kabbalah) and the core of the Jewish religion. With that said, to break down the phrase; God is usually associated with heaven, and heaven is commonly associated with the skies, or that which is above our earthly sphere. In the vast majority of cultures and religions of antiquity, the celestial bodies (planets and stars) are what composed the heavens where God, or Gods for polytheistic cultures, resided (many times the gods of various ancient pantheons actually represented said celestial bodies, such as in Greek and Roman paganism, to name a couple). Throughout these various religious traditions, it was commonly believed that man was composed of those heavenly bodies, or “gods,” as various organs and temperaments were of certain planetary or astrological influences. In other words, according to such astrological traditions, the formation of man's body and temperament are directly affected by those celestial bodies (“gods”). With that said, and the fact that Jewish mysticism is steeped in Astrology, it is highly probable that the phrase created in the “image of God” is a veiled astrological reference to man being created in the image of celestial influences.
On a different note, I did not bring this up in the class discussion, so I felt I would post it here in the blog. There is another way that some Jewish/Hebrew scholars approach reading the Old Testament, although this method is not a way of actually reading the outright text, but 'decoding it' so to speak to look for secret messages. This is not a literal way of reading it, but is an interesting topic which has yielded some interesting results, so I thought I would blog about it to bring it up to those who may not be familiar with this. Some people in this class may have heard of the “Bible Code” or the “Torah Code.” What those refer to are coded messages hidden within the original Hebrew Torah. It is important to understand that the Jews consider Hebrew to be a mystical language, with various unique aspects to the language (such as gematria, which means words of the same numeric value are directly related to each other (IE “god” and “love” in Hebrew have the same numeric value, so God would then be equal to love because of that connection). Also, the Torah is supposed to be given to humanity directly from God through Moses, which makes it a holy and mystical text to the Jews. Taking both of those points into context, it is believed that various secret messages and information can be extracted from the Torah using these methods. What they do is take the scripture, then form a grid using ELS, or equa-distant letter spacing, where they take a symbol at a given regular interval to form a grid just like a crossword puzzle. Then they search this grid for words and names to find secret messages within the grids. Many interesting results have been produced using this method, and there are many Rabbis who have dedicated their lives to this study. With that said, my post here does not do this topic justice, and for those who are interested in this topic, you should google for more in depth explinations.
Why did God praise Abel and not Cain? Why was God confused over Cain's reaction of sadness and killing his brother Abel? Why did Eve say Cain was of the Lord and not of Adam?
Many people so far have mentioned learning about Christianity, growing up with it, and living by the church's ideals. What they haven't said is that they had read the bible. I, like most people learned these religious stories orally first. The Bible is very much an oral epic, like The Book of Gilgamesh and The Iliad. For most of European tradition of the Bible. it was told orally because people were illiterate and the Bible was written in unpopular languages like Aramaic, Hebrew or Latin. This means that the stories didn't stay true. All children who have played the telephone game know, when a phrase is passed on by word of mouth it changes to reflect the person who speaks it and will continue to change because the previous person's changes.
I learned the stories of the Bible at night. They were my child hood bed time fables. I was sung the Our Father at nap time. The Bible was a strong presence in my family, like many children across the globe. I always thought I knew them well, but I had never read the Bible until ninth grade. I learned quickly that I had no understanding of any of the stories that I thought I knew by heart. The rereading of the story of Cain and Abel was confusing because I never pondered why Abel was so much more loved by God, or why he received praise and why Cain didn't and was driven to sin. Small sentences are used a lot for emphasis, and this short story is no exception. The problem with this is that so much detail is left out and there is too much room for interpretation.
When I first heard the story of Cain and Abel, I was told God loved Abel more because Abel was more devout and that Cain was too prideful. It doesn't say that anywhere in the story. It does say that Cain grew crops and Abel tended to the sheep. God is many times referred to as a shepard and I have to wonder if it is because there is something better about a shepard than a farmer. shepards make more money, but otherwise I wouldn't say there is anything inherently bad about farming, or good about shepards. I do like shepards, especially the adorable yodelers.
Cain and Abel both gave offerings to God. Cain gave produce and Abel gave some of the first born of his flock. Abel was rewarded by God and when Cain was not, he became downcast. This is a sign of favoritism and I have to believe that the reason Cain was so sad was because he could see this in God. That he was less loved. I have to wonder if God drove Cain to kill Abel. God is an omniscient all encompassing power and is deliberately involving himself with this new civilization that has little knowledge and very little experience of the world. These people must have been very sheltered and completely ignorant of the repercussions of their actions. It doesn't seem like they would know of death or what a tragedy it would be. If God knew that Cain would be jealous and would attack his brother like many children do because of jealously, why would he have done it. To teach a lesson? What lesson could demand such a sacrifice?
Many times in the Bible the first born is more sacred. Why is that? Is it because God have Eve the ability to give birth? But then isn't the first born supposed to be a punishment because birth is a punishment. Is then Cain a punishment to Even and Adam and Abel a bystander? I couldn't understand the necessity to dub one child better by birth than the other but Eve does say the Cain is born of God and doesn't say the same for Abel. I have to wonder is Eve the reason God doesn't love Cain as much? When Eve said what she did about Cain was that inciting wrath from God onto him?
There are too many possibilities to interpret the Bible correctly. Any implications are only guesses and will only ever be perceived that way because the writers of the Bible are long dead and will never be able to explain their word choice. I wish they were because then there wouldn't be a need to ponder the possibilities so much and our homework would have been much easier.
Interpreting the bible is always a touchy subject. It is hard to interpret and criticize it while trying not to offend anyone who follows it deeply. Me, not being a religious person, finds it difficult to read this and find a reason to believe it. The stories in Genesis are just a little bit too ridiculous for me. It comes off as a very fictional work to me, no more real than something such as Star Wars. When reading it as text, and not as a piece of religion, it seems to me that God is made out to be the antagonist. He is the one who is very controlling of the earth, he commands what people should do, and punishes those who strive to have freedom. He punishes Adam and Eve for, what the theme makes it out to be, seeking out knowledge and concept. Genesis makes God out to be very overpowering and controlling. The main theme I received from these readings is creation and destruction. It shows how God created the world, and from there humanity with the creation of Adam and Eve. When Adam and Eve defy him he punishes them with things like painful childbirth and work, things that our society is still doing today. Then with the story of Noah, God is annoyed with humanity and plans to flood the world. He is destroying the world he created to start off fresh with Noah starting the new world. The reading go through a lot of changes, but the main concept is creation and beginnings.
Throughout most of the assigned section of Genesis the text seems to follow a particular structural pattern. First, a story is narrated and characters are introduced; then, a genealogy often comes after. What is the effect of this pattern, both on understanding the themes of the text and as a critical reading of this specific section?
To begin I found this pattern to be easily noticeable, if not obvious, in my reading of these chapters. It begins shortly after Cain and Abel are introduced, as shortly after learning of Cain’s crimes the reader learns of his offspring. Also worth noting is the type of story placed in between this seemingly out-of-place family trees. Many of these stories are larger-than-life stories: Cain killing Abel, Noah and his Arc, the Tower of Babel, and the Abram’s relationship with God. There are multiple instances in the chapters discussing Abram where the story actually stops to explain where some of the characters and their extended families end up. This pattern, then, was influential in my analysis of this text. When it comes to the themes of the text, the breaks to discuss family lines made it more difficult to see the different stories as pieces of a whole. While these different tales are not meant to line up perfectly with each other, it would be easier to see the connections between them without the lists of names that follow each one. Also most of the names are not even mentioned in the preceding stories, and in the cases where the names might be familiar with the reader, the genealogy goes into much deeper detail than necessary to offer background information. It causes the text to lose the sense of fluidity. Looking at Genesis from a critical perspective, these genealogies make it difficult to take the text serious. Unless the reader is familiar with the people mentioned in these lists, and I certainly am not, they appear unrelated and basically nonsensical. It is very difficult to pull some meaning out of these portions of Genesis, and therefore they are useless when looking from a critical perspective.
Early in Genesis, God establishes interaction with humanity. This changes throughout the text, however, as it seems that God treats each group/generation differently. What are some of the qualities of God’s relationship with humanity?
Throughout God’s interactions with specific people in the text, one thing stays constant: God is always treated as an all-powerful, all-knowing individual that must be feared. God even tests Abraham to make sure he fears him, requiring him to sacrifice his son. Before Abraham is successful an angel steps in, stating, “…now I know that you fear God.” (Genesis 22.12) While the people’s perspective of God stays constant, God seems to change his mind frequently when dealing with humanity. Beginning with Adam and Eve and the tree of knowledge, God creates this idea of limiting humanity. This continues with the Tower of Babel as God states, “Come, let us go down, and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.” (Genesis 11.7) In between these two narratives, God destroys all of humanity with a giant flood. But, as the reader sees after the flood with Noah and later on with Abraham and Isaac, God is also willing to make covenants with individuals. At times it seems God is almost hasty to do so, promising many ancestors and great nations to some men. The bottom line is that I found God’s treatment of humanity to be inconsistent. I had never questioned it before because, in my previous readings of Genesis, I held the assumption that God was omnipotent and unquestionable. But, when God is understood as another character in the story, this inconsistency becomes harder to justify.
Mike Gole Humn 220 Professor Akman January 29, 2013 Blog Entry 2
Why is the Bible such an important work in Western Humanities?
I would be shocked to find a many people in America who are unfamiliar with the Bible. Regardless of how much of it they have read, the vast majority of Americans have at least heard of the Bible, and many are likely familiar with some of its stories. This makes the Bible a logical place to start when teaching Western humanities. Regardless of whether or not one believes the Bible to be a holy text, one cannot deny the impact that the Bible has had on Western civilizations. In an area dominated by Christianity, the Bible is undoubtedly one of the most influential books in the entire history of what we consider to be “western civilizations.” As such, I believe it is important for even non-believers to read the Bible as a piece of literature with significant historical importance.
What meaning does the Bible hold to those who do not consider it a Holy text?
As stated above, there are few “non-believers” who would argue that the Bible has not had a massive impact on world history, specifically the history of western civilizations. Therefore, I believe that, to gain a better understanding of many of the events that have transpired in history, one should familiarize oneself with the Bible, regardless of whether or not they believe. Especially when one goes on to study poetry, Shakespeare, or various other fields, an understanding of the Bible will be key to understanding allusions frequently made in these works.
If God was attempting to keep mankind ignorant, was this truly for the best?
In class, someone asked why God forbid Adam and Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. I found this to be an interesting question, and one that, as someone who was raised in a fairly strong Christian environment, I would honestly rather ignore than answer. However, when looked at objectively, it becomes clear that there are several possibilities behind God’s rationale. The first consideration is that God seems to be very big on having control. Again, as someone mentioned in class, he turned Lot’s wife into a pillar of salt for disobeying him in what seemed to be a very trivial way. Perhaps, in a way similar to this, God was attempting to exert his dominance over man by keeping them from eating from the Tree of Knowledge. The other possibility to consider is that God may have been trying to save mankind from having to deal with the burden of knowledge, and the burden of fully understanding the nature of good and evil.
"In the beginning..." when reading this for the first time, it is striking that the stories are written in such a simplistic manner. A lot of the lines repeat, and it almost reminded me of a refrain in a poem. For example, when explaining the days and steps of creation, it would end with "...and it was so" (genesis 1). The repeating of such lines may have been to put what was occuring during creation into perspective. God was creating all that is known by man today in regards to nature and was doing it in such an easy, matter-of-fact manner, that the repeated "...and it was so" line is intended to portray that what God wants to occur, will occur with minimal effort from Him. Also, the way in which the paragraphs are set up is interesting too. It appears to be that the authors will set up the story within the first few sections and then pinpoint one particular instance next. When talking about Adam and Eve, they are first brought up when "...God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them..." (Genesis 2). Then it went on to describe His first conversations with Adam and how Eve came to be. Some of the people mentioned almost seem to be there simply for acknowledgment's sake. Genesis will list six or seven people to pick out the honorable mentions and the rest will be forgotten. I am not completely sure what the point of these listings are except maybe to keep track of the lineage of the first people on Earth. It also seems that maybe this was how particular nations came to be. A man would have so many sons in a particular place, and then that was where their people dwelled for the rest of time. One of the things that confused me the most was when Adam and Eve had two sons Abel and Cain, and once Abel was out of the picture, Cain went about his business as a wanderer and found himself a wife somewhere. Where did this woman come from if Cain and Abel are the only two children Adam and Eve had? The only thing I can think of is that God created more than just Adam and Eve at first, but like later on in Genesis, Adam was a chosen one out of many.
The Bible is noteworthy, in part, because it has arguably influenced more literature than any other single work. This includes everything from classics like Beowulf and the Canterbury Tales to modern fantasy such as the Chronicles of Narnia. However, what I find interesting is not comparing the Bible to later works, but to stories that precede it or are otherwise separated from it. The Epic of Gilgamesh predates the Bible, and it includes a story of a flood created by a deity meant to cleanse the Earth of the human civilization. What can be inferred from this? Was Noah’s story adapted from the Epic of Gilgamesh? Are these two historical documents indicating an actual flood occurred? Does this speak to the fear of water the river valley civilizations of the time had? Knowing that other cultures have stories of floods, I infer that the people who populated the river valley civilizations throughout history viewed them as destructive and unpredictable, which made stories of apocalyptic deluges very believable. The creation story in Genesis is very similar to other creation stories. The Greeks believed that after a man was created he was given a woman as companion. Furthermore, she ruined the perfect home they had been given by the gods when she was tempted to disobey the gods, opening Pandora’s Box against their explicit instructions. In the Iroquois’s creation myth, there was a civilization of people who lived in the sky where everyone was happy and a tree that gave them all light. A woman living on this island in the sky became pregnant with twins, which infuriated her husband. He ripped up the tree that gave them light, and the woman, curious, peered down the hole where the tree used to be. She was then pushed down it, falling to Earth, where she gave birth to a good twin and a bad twin. The consistency with which women caused humans to lose their position in a perfect society is very telling as to who wrote the stories. I infer from association with trees and light and knowledge that trees were known for their age in previous civilizations, and associated their age with wisdom. The story of the two brothers fighting reminds me of Cain and Abel. I wonder why seeking knowledge and being curious was seen as a dangerous character trait. Just like viewing the Bible alone, viewing many creation stories at once can be interpreted spiritually. Some believe that all religions have some truth to them, and use the similarities between religions that were never in contact with one another as evidence to support the idea that they creators of these stories were divinely inspired. Personally, I try to look for insight into human nature. I think we all want to belong to something, and we like blaming others for not having what we want. I think we fear what we don’t understand, and want to makes sense of tragedies. In a world where religions are known for the problems they cause, reading Genesis and thinking about why people may have liked these teachings was a good reminder for me. I forget that there is a reason why religions were created. People needed something to believe in when surrounded by uncertainty. I can’t say whether or not religion has been a positive influence the world, but it seems that people all across the world have been drawn to similar beliefs, and I like to think it has served them well, even if I can’t find any comfort in it myself.
Jessica Bourdage Week 2 Strange Power Why is the bible so repetitive? When reading the bible I couldn’t help but notice how much phrases are repeated. In class we talked about how translations can change the meaning of the work. The bible happens to be one of the most translated pieces and has many different authors. Perhaps this is why things happen to repeat themselves. Or perhaps it adds emphasis to the work. In the first part of Genesis, God creates things and for each day the author repeats “there was evening and there was a morning” to show the passing of time. In many different sections it seems to just list a whole bunch of names of people who were the sons of this person. It goes on until you have a whole family tree. In part 5 of Genesis, it just lists the generations of Adam. It lists how long they lived and their sons and says “he died.” I feel that the repetition and the info is unnecessary. Background is always good for any story but every small detail doesn’t have to be included. I felt that it was a bit too much info on all of these different people and their sons that wasn’t really relevant to the story. It might have been more effective to have simplified it in order to get from Seth to Noah. How is the Lord portrayed? The Lord creates man and woman in his image. He talks to Abraham about making Abraham the father of a multitude of nations. The Lord seems to favor the people who are part of his covenant. It’s almost like an exclusive club. In order to be a part of his “club” you have to adhere to his rules. He says, “Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.” (pg. 13) The Lord also seems to be bias in the Exodus. He favors the Israelis over the Egyptians. He recruits Moses to help free his people yet the Lord also hardens the heart of the Pharaoh, making him refuse the Israelis from leaving. The Lord makes a statement with the Pharaoh and his men to show his power when he drowns them in the Red Sea. He also decides to kill all the first borns. The people sing “terror and dread fall upon them because of the greatness of thy arm.” (pg. 61) He does these acts to make people believe and show his power but does that justify killing people to make his point? Does he have the right to kill since he is the one who has created man? In the story of the flood, the Lord sees that the people he has created have become wicked and evil so he decides to create the flood. He wants to “blot out man” because he’s “sorry that he made them” (pg. 5) He succeeds in creating the flood whether it be wrong or right it’s in his power. Is the bible all positive? The stories in Genesis are not all delightful. Some deal with some strange events. Instead of letting the men of Sodom use the men that came to him, Lot instead tells them that he “has two daughters who have not known man; let me bring them out to you and do to them as you please.” (pg. 14) Lot was willing to protect the men than his own flesh and blood. This shows a bit of sexism like in other parts such as with Adam and Eve when the Lord says “In pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” (pg. 3)There is even more disturbing parts when Lot and his family flees to a cave. His eldest daughter comes up with a plan to sleep with their father in order to produce offspring. She tells the younger, “Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve offspring through our father.” (pg. 15) In Genesis, fathers seem to be willing to do horrible things to their children for the Lord. The previous example of Lot giving up his daughters instead of the men shows this. Another example is when Abraham brings his son, Isaac, up a mountain and plans to use him as a sacrifice before God stops him and instead produces a ram for the sacrifice.
Questions to be considered: Does the Bible's status as a religious text mean that criticism should be withheld? What lessons, as a non-believer, can be drawn from the text in a non-literal sense? How do these lessons stand up to modern life and humanist ideals?
Who's up for a game of hypotheticals? Let's say we have a book -- not just any book, but a best-selling book. Any will do - just picture it in your head, full of engaging story lines and relatable characters who are just so easy to cheer for. Now, lets say that this book has scores of devoted fans - more numerous than Randian objectivists and more personally enamored than any Tolkien fan. Would you, as a individual with an interest in thinking critically about the literature before you, consider the (undoubtedly strong) feelings of that particular group of fanatics? No! No you would not, shrieking hordes of incorrigible lunatics be damned. It could be said that those who view the work as so thoroughly faultless are probably not interested in good-natured discussion, and instead just pointless adulation. It is here where I draw my stance on the Bible as literature: the idea that the Bible can escape real pointed criticism simply because of it's exalted position as holy scripture is, to me, the very antithesis of literary critique. I recognize that the people who would consider the Bible as a piece of literature would in all likelihood agree, and those who don't probably view it as unimpeachable direction from big-g God himself. I suppose this rather brash treatment of the text comes easy to me, a self-described secular humanist with no real concept of divinity outside of "someone said God did it". Without meaningful critique, how can unique and personal meaning (and as such, salvation) be found? Or is that not the point of the soi-disant "personal savior" which Christianity (and other Abrahamic religions) prides itself on?
Seeing as asking questions into the great faceless aether of the internet seldom results in concrete answers, I shall move on to what can be drawn from the scriptures, even as an atheist. The most evident thing to me was, that at its very heart, the Bible is all about knowledge -- both the proliferation, and control thereof. The first chapters of Genesis address the most common conundrum in man's history: creation. The desire to know just who we are and where we came from is very base, yet still admirable from the standpoint of those living in antiquity. It demonstrates that, just as so many other religions before it, Judaism (and later Christianity) is primarily based in the pursuit of explaining the world around us, by whatever means are apparent. This is heartening to someone like me, who can so easily fall into a wholly cynical view of religion and its trappings and more easily illustrates that religion is about attempting to more wholly understand each other, and not simply a means of mass control, a popular notion amongst jaded atheists. Another big time lesson put forth is the importance of reverence towards figures of authority as a facet of piousness-- be it parents, a slave's master, or God himself, those who follow are infinitely more likely to prosper, and those who deviate are swiftly punished. These examples are probably where non-believers draw their cynicism from -- rightfully so, if you are not keen on annihilating cities, or pillars of salt.
Taking a stance as a humanist, this is where I take the greatest umbrage with what is contained within the scripture. It is central to my worldview that humanity, and not a divine force, is wholly responsible for the good and evil present in the world today. So, every time that a figure is reprimanded for being, well, HUMAN, I am reminded why I, nor anyone in my family can be described as "devout". Adam and Eve are expelled from Eden for stumbling upon knowledge of good and evil -- a moral dichotomy that every human is aware of today. In a world like today, where information is so essential to being part of society, this initial lesson taught by God seems not only tyrannical, but outright cruel. Why offer the temptation of knowledge if you were just going to use it as an excuse for expulsion? Unless, of course, the plan was to have humanity leave the garden in the first place, at which point you begin to question whether this God fellow really is all that kind. Questioning and curiosity are two of the most important parts of the human condition, and the suppression of such pursuits is indicative to me that somewhere along the line, someone became very insecure about the ability of religion to actually keep its adherents.
Amanda Thomas Humn 220 Akman Blog #2 Why Read the Bible as a piece of literature? Many people can form different understanding on what literature is and what should be read in a class as teaching material. The bible is one when many people try to stay away from it as it can touch some many different people in different ways. But reading the bible can open new things and ideas that can have an important role in how a literature class works. When reading the bible you can learn what is like to understand not only a different culture but also how the culture itself affects the religion. Interpreting the bible as literature can also become a challenge. When trying to do a cultural understanding one looks at major books such as Genesis and how it is told how the earth is created. Understanding this can mean lead to many other ideas such as how when people were so new to earth they could do what they did? Or Why did humans act the way they did and lead to some many different civilizations and cultures around the world today? Literature can be seen as a written work that defines language, period or a certain culture. The bible fits in this because it talks about a certain culture, the creation of earth and the belief in God and religion of Christianity, and led to Muslim and the Jewish traditions can find some roots from each other. What is role of Women According to the Book of Genesis in the Bible? The role of women throughout history has been challenged and changed many different times. Eve in the bible can be seen as a person who wants to follow rules but what to test the knowledge of man as well. Being told not to eat from the tree of life being a woman she challenges this and is then forced upon by good that she will become responsible for childbirth. She takes this as a simple thing in life and puts up no fight. Being women she feels a sense of challenge and that she must prove herself. Sarah can be seen as the same way when she is told that she will have a baby. She responses by laughing and saying I am to old, but she does not but up a fight and does give birth to a son. Then can both be seen has having a sense of life that they need to show that they are women and can be the same as man. Man always holds a higher priority. Adam can be seen to being in charge of Eve but when God confronts him about eating the fruit he blames Eve. He places the blame on a women because he cannot be seen as disobeying God. This shows that women create a bad reputation just because men will do anything to show they are not failures and women are. What is the importance of the bible in a civilization or culture? The book of Genesis in the Bible can have many different symbols and how cultures can be affected by the meanings. The tree of life can show that mankind came from a single sprout or leaf of the tree. As the tree grew so did the civilizations and the trust in God everywhere. The creation of man the destroying man with flood can show that God was not happy with his creation and he wants to start over similar to how as one civilization die out another comes along and is better and learns from the previous mistakes. The importance can be that reading and interpreting the Bible can lead to understand what ones role in a culture can be. Creating something out of one’s life can come from what one interprets the bible to be and how important it is in their life.
Since this is the most sold book in the world it must have great importance to our lifestyles. However, it is also one of the most unread books so what does that mean? Many people today follow Christianity and believe in Christ. Therefore, most people would expect others to have read the Bible if that is the book of their beliefs. Most people don’t read the bible straight through and instead focus on various stories throughout the bible that have symbolic references to our lives and are learning experiences, especially for children to read and understand in Sunday School. I myself do not believe in God but as a child I was baptized, confirmed to my church, and went through youth group. So while I read these passages from the Bible I definitely see it in a literary perspective. I find it interesting but at some points to extraordinary to be believable. However, I feel this book has a lot to offer for different groups of people no matter what religion you believe in or not believe in. One could sit and ponder what one passage means for hours and never fully understand it which makes this book a great book to read. There are many different ways to interpret these passages which will increase the fun in discussing it even if some people do not believe it to be true. To conclude this, I am excited to find out how other students in the class reflected on such a broad topic like this in the upcoming passages of Exodus and Job.
Whether or not you are Christian, you have most likely heard at least one story from the Bible. The Bible is one of the best selling and most referenced texts of all time and is important in studying the humanities. I had never read the Bible before and reading Genesis was an interesting experience. If we read the Bible as literature from a critical perspective, we can uncover symbolism as well as analyze the characters the genres in the text.
Did God intend for Adam and Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge? One topic of interest from Genesis is the tree of good and evil. In class we discussed whether or not God assumed that humans would ever eat fruit from the tree. If God didn’t want any humans to eat from this tree, what was the purpose of him putting it there in the first place? If Adam and Eve had never eaten the forbidden fruit, then it appears their lives would be very easy. Adam and Eve may not have been intended to eat the fruit but perhaps God had anticipated that someone would eventually eat from the tree of knowledge. I personally think it is the latter option. God seems to lose some control over humanity as the offspring of Adam and Eve grow up. First, there is the Cain and Able story and then God chooses to “make an end of all flesh” (p.5) because the Earth was too corrupt and violent. If this corruptness and violence were in fact caused by the original sin of eating the forbidden fruit, then it seems that God was not prepared for the consequences.
What are the genres in the Bible? Another interesting discussion from class was about the different genres in the Bible. Genesis clearly contains elements of many varieties of contemporary styles such as horror stories and dramas. The drama between Abraham, Sarah and Hagar is sure to come up in many modern movies, shows and probably quite frequently in reality as well. I think that drawing modern day parallels is a useful tool in reading the Bible as literature. If the Bible is read from a literary standpoint as opposed to a religious perspective, then we can critically analyze all the characters, including God. Even God exhibits characteristics seen in dramas and horror stories. Vengeance, wrath, jealously are a few examples. In Genesis, God nearly wipes out the entire planet yet then tells Noah to repopulate the Earth. God is still the supreme power of all but the character of God is not always in complete control. In this way, reading the Bible from a critical literary view opens the door for a lot of new questions and angles for analysis.
Genesis The book of Genesis focusses on the creation of man and of the expansion of man under God’s covenant. Genesis begins with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. The chapter focuses on how Eve is tricked by the snake to eat fruit from the Tree of Knowledge and then give some to Adam. The two realize they are naked and immediately hasten to clothe themselves before God arrives. When God learns that they have disobeyed him he makes it so childbirth would be a painful process for Eve and all women and banishes Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden. In this section Adam and Eve demonstrate the human thirst for knowledge and the curiosity to defy the rules in the quest for that knowledge. In some ways this section demonstrates some common qualities that all humans share. After their banishment from the Garden of Eden they gave birth to their son Cain followed by Abel. One day in anger Cain killed Abel and makes him “a fugitive and a wanderer of the earth”. Cain went forth married and produced offspring, including Noah (pg.4). When God saw how wicked man had become he decided to flood the earth sparing only Noah and his descendants. In this section the violence that Cain demonstrated when he jealously murdered his brother was shone in most of his descendants requiring God to annihilate their evil from the world. Of Noah’s descendants were Abram, who went with his wife Sarai and his nephew Lot in following God’s orders to the land of Canaan. While in Canaan, Abram ventured to Egypt and angered the Pharaoh after it was revealed that the woman he claimed was his sister was really his wife Sarai. After he left Egypt as a very rich man, Abram and Sarai settled in the area. However Abram’s wife, Sarai, could not provide him any children so instead she had her Egyptian maid, Hagar, conceive her husband child instead. Later after Abram spoke with God his name became Abraham and Sarai became Sarah. God allowed Sarah to conceive a child, who would be called Isaac as God had instructed. This chapter was surprising since Abraham and Sarah were always portrayed to me as being good and the qualities I have seen in this section, such as infidelity and jealousy, are not exactly what I would call good. Further away in Sodom two angels arrive, whose mission is to destroy the city for its outcry. But before this is done the angels spare Lot, Noah’s nephew, and his daughters and take them away from the city. After fleeing Zoar Lot went up into the hills with his daughter where both of them got their father to consume wine and impregnate them, resulting in them giving birth to their fathers children. In this section; I wondered why did the city need to be destroyed, surely there was another solution to get these men to change their ways instead of simply killing them. Meanwhile Sarah gave birth to Abraham’s son Isaac, after which she had her maid, Hagar, banished since Sarah now had her own child and had no further need of hers. God decided to test Abraham and ordered him to take his son Isaac up to the Land of Moriah and sacrifice him. Abraham passed the test when he was willing to sacrifice his son, whom he did not have to sacrifice on the order of an Angel. In exchange for passing his test God blessed Abraham and multiplied his descendants. After Sarah died Abraham decided that he needed to find a wife for his son Isaac and sent out his servant to his homeland to find and wife for his son and bring her back to Canaan. So the servant left and after arriving in his master’s homeland prayed to God to assist him in his quest. God answered his prayer and the servant found Rebekah and brought her back to Canaan to become wife to Isaac. In the final sections I found it unnerving that Rebekah would so willingly go with a strange man to a land she had never been to be married to someone she had never met. In today’s society such an occurrence is unheard of. While I find it hard to believe that such events that were told in Genesis actually happened, I am not yet prepared to declare that it is false.
Coming into Humanities, I have never read the Bible; I barely even laid a hand on a Bible before in my life. I have only stepped into a Church three times, once to watch a friend perform in a choir, and the other two times with my girlfriend and her family when they went to Sunday mass on the days I stayed over. So as you can see, my exposure to the Christian religion, let alone religion in it of itself, is minimal, to say the least. So seeing both the Bible and the Qur’an on the book list was a challenge I was willing to accept. I have wanted to test the waters, and see what everyone has been talking about, and this class has given me a reason to pick these books up. Reading Genesis, and the Bible itself, as a work of literature, was not as hard as I had thought it was going to be. Before opening up the Bible, I had expected something along the lines of reading Shakespeare, language that I could barely make out. But the Bible was a surprisingly easy read. This may be the immense popularity of the book, as it is the most sold book of all time. In order to have this success, translators must have had translated the book not just word for word, but in a way that would have the average reader come back to the book. But that comes with a trade-off, as much of the Bible’s meaning is lost due to the many times it has been translated, whether sections were reworded to help the public better understand, or whole sections were removed due to distinct tastes. And not only did the translators change the meaning behind many sections in the Bible, but the many parts of the Bible seem to have many inconsistencies. Many sections seem to speak of one thing, but the section after may just disregard what was just said. This is evident very early on, when Genesis speaks of the creation of Adam and Eve. It was said God created both male and female in his own image, but later on in Genesis it was depicted that female was created from the rib of Adam, therefore stating that female was created in the image of male. When I finished reading Genesis, the God that was depicted was not the God that I had heard about from many of my religious friends, nor the God that my uncle, who is a pastor at his own church, speaks of. The God they all speak of is a benevolent God, one who forgives man when they sin, as long as they confess and recognize the harms they have done. The God depicted in Genesis comes across to me as a very spiteful and vengeful God, one who has no tolerance for sinning. This God would destroy cities that are filled with humans who have sinned, and would even destroy every form of life because evil has grown in the world. If this God were present in our life, all sinners would be evaporated on the spot, and there would be no need for jails. This God also comes across to me as bias. He picks his favorites among the human race. He chose Noah to lead the arc which saved all things of flesh on the Earth. He also choose Abraham as his favorite, and even allowed for him to trick him at times. God also made promises of infinite lands and riches to the followers who did as he said. These traits are not traits that I would envision God having. He should be non-partial, omnipotent, and forgiving, as he is depicted today.
Humanities with a Global Approach Robert Lawton Week 2 – The Bible Part 1 As this class is Humanities with a Global Approach I am looking to view the Bible from a different perspective. I believe, perhaps too proudly, that I have a very unique perspective. As a pseudo-American who was adopted in my early teens by a Laos family, who themselves had come over as political refugees at the charity of a local church I was not raised with traditional American outlooks on society and religion. I attended church periodically with various foster families, but never received a consistent Christian indoctrination. Instead, from that time when I was taken in as a refugee of sorts myself I began attending temple. I identified as Buddhist from that point on, and forsook the church proper. As we grew up my siblings began to shift away from the traditional temple. Some became more avidly Christian, and others took on the new American religion of agnosticism. I was disappointed in this, as I felt it a step back for them. I was proudly Buddhist. However, when I was asked what that meant I could say very little about it. I did not speak enough Laos to understand much of what was said in temple. Religious language in any language is different from the secular, especially the string of curse words I primarily employed in speaking Laos. I decided I needed to explore what being ‘Buddhist’ actually was, and why I did not want to be Christian. This decision led me to explore both religions from a standpoint of having a little bit of knowledge in each. I had seen Christmas movies, and I had seen Little Buddha. As I immersed myself in the Western Dharma culture I heard people say 2 things, very different things, about Buddhism. Some held it was a religion, while others said it was only a philosophy. Everyone agreed Christianity was a religion, but could not agree on the Dharma (Buddhism to non-Buddhists). The question becomes, “What is religion?” In my opinion, the early books of the bible clearly define, or at least provide the characteristics of a religion. Some are shared, others are not. Fundamentally there are some extreme differences.
Lawton part 2 In the beginning… there is creation of Christianity, in Christianity. This does not exist in Buddhism, where the need for a creation story does not exist. Many religions around the world though have this as a fundamental of their beliefs. While it is entirely possible to believe in God and not creationism, the fact that the metaphor of God’s power is still in (and accepted) the Bible is core to the idea of a religion – there must be something else out there, beyond the power of man that is making stuff happen. Whether we can understand it or not, explain it or let it remain a mystery a religion would seem to need a creation. The Bible starting with a creation theory seems to say that from the beginning of the world (from your faith) God is there, God is present, and God is in control. This is the antithesis of Dharma, which maintains that it is not necessary to know where things came from, but only to think about where it is going. Genesis continues with the creation of Man, and to a lesser extent woman. They partake of the forbidden fruit and damn is all for eternity, unless God saves us of course. And to do that we once again have to surrender ourselves to his power. Again, this concept only marginally exists within Buddhism. In the Dharma as taught by Buddha there is suffering, but there is a cause to suffering, an end to suffering, and of course a method to end suffering. While this is a different approach than Christianity, this is where the religiosity of Buddhism steps in. There is a way to rise above our mortal shackles (Samsara) and break from the cycle of suffering and non-suffering to achieve a state beyond. Technically this is the Three Bodies of the Buddha, which coincidentally is not too dissimilar to the Trinity. The Bible has a list of genealogy, a way to verify the authenticity so to speak of the words within. This shows how old and important it is. These people lived hundreds of years by the grace of God, even though by that time they were well incorporated with original sin. The Dharma, especially the Tibetan tradition is also very fond of tracing lineages. Ostensibly it is a way to know the authenticity of a text or teaching, but the key to the Dharmic approach is that we are always taught by the texts to question our teachings. As Buddha says “Study my words like a goldsmith for flaws and only use what is deemed pure.” Much of this has been forgotten by current Dharma practitioners as Buddha has become an religion of following and not questioning.
The question becomes, is religion about following or is it about learning and growing? Is it about community and shared heritage? Is religion material or spiritual? Christianity has it’s prophets and saints, and so does Buddhism. Christianity has a holy book (one book to rule them all) and Buddhism has its own texts. While there is no creation theory, there is much else in common. In the end the basic systems of beliefs differ to greatly for them to be called the same, but I believe they can both be safely called religion.
Reading a text like Genesis as literature is simultaneously very simple and very difficult. Every religion and culture has a creation story and tales of ancestors that serve as guidelines for the values and morals that the members of these groups should obey. If this were a translation of a Native American or African account of how the Earth was created and how man came to live on the Earth it would be extremely simple to read the text and think about aspects of the author’s life and the society in which he lived. This examination would also be insight into the important social norms that related the group that the author of the story belonged to and what purpose in society the story served. This can be done with Genesis as well, it is easy to read the story and think about the tales of ancient people who lived in a foreign land. The Old Testament is a collection of stories from an ancient tribe of people, which tell stories of both the struggle to survive and success in life, attributing parts of human life to an all-knowing higher power is extremely common in all civilizations and cultures. The difficulty with the critical interpretation of this specific text comes when you consider that Genesis along with the rest of the Old Testament is often said to be part of the foundation of this country and a vital part of the lives of many of its citizens. Stories like Adam and Eve, Noah and the Ark, the testing of Abraham, as well as the countless other tales that are part of the Old Testament are often invoked in the political and social realms of America.
This brings up the issue of how to read the actual text of the Old Testament and what information can be gathered from it. Could it be read and analyzed the way that a work by Shakespeare or Homer would be viewed. For some individuals it would be simple to read the stories and think about them in a literary sense, where plot elements and the actions of the characters in these tales represent a message that is being conveyed. This is an aspect of every story that has been written, they are a series of events that involve characters and teach a lesson, this is no different from a fantasy novel. Alternatively, many people believe that the Old Testament is a factual account of the word of GOD and his work on the Earth. It could be argued that the importance and sacrilege that is placed on the stories that the Bible contains have a tremendous amount of influence due to the fact that they are the subject of weekly sermons and lessons told to Jews, Christians and Muslims. The text is not as important as the interpretation by religious organizations and their members. Viewing the actual stories of the Old Testament critically and examining their effects on society, as well as the textual meaning of these widespread tales, requires readers to suspend preconceived ideas or beliefs when examining these texts.
I was raised as a Christian. I went to religion classes, got my communion and my confirmation. However, I never really felt like a true Christian. I was never able to believe the stories I read and was told the way that my family and friends could, without seeing proof. Believing, without seeing any evidence, has always been a difficult thing for me to do. Genesis speaks of the origins of this world. This includes the creation of Earth, life, and man. The birth of man’s knowledge, as well as his understanding of how the world is going to work, all came from the original “sin”. This sin was simply disobeying God, who seemed to be man just like those who disobeyed him, yet he had all the power. He immediately banished those who disobeyed him, and cursed them and their descendants for all eternity. In my opinion, this seems very drastic. The Bible seems to claim that God forgives all sins, so long as we are remorseful. As opposed to showing forgiveness and compassion, God banishes his creations, his first children. That just seems hard to believe, at least for me. The story of Adam and Eve is just a small part of the whole picture that I have trouble seeing. A huge addition to this concept is the story of Noah and the flood. Why would God, the one who forgives, destroy everything and everyone simply because they aren’t what he wants them to be? The Bible claims that God willingly murdered millions of creatures, human and not, just because he didn’t like them. This does not seem realistic at all, and it definitely is not forgiving and accepting, as God is supposed to be. In class, we discussed the different ways to approach reading the Bible, and how we can read it critically. In order to critically read the Bible, it needs to be approached with an unbiased, unspoiled mind. Having a belief, whether it is the Bible being true or not, makes it very difficult to read the Bible critically. Being as I have trouble accepting the Bible as true, and in fact see it as a very interesting work of fiction (with plenty of good lessons, of course, but fiction none-the-less), I know that reading this work of literature in the way this class requires is going to be very hard to do.
Overall god's actions towards women are generally spiteful. He treats the children of men in this way as well by cursing them for their father's wrongs as in Noah's grandchild's case in chapter nine. This case of treating the child of the man badly can be extended as treating the mother badly because the child is an extension of the female mother. There are other oddities most easily seen with the treatment of Sarai in Egypt within chapter 12. Sarai becomes the lover of the Pharaoh while remaining married to Abraham. This is awkward considering Abraham allowed it and received no punishment and neither did Sarai, but the Pharaoh and his entire kingdom was cursed for a period. This makes no sense to me, but the easiest way I can translate this today is that god was upset with the Pharaoh for using another man's property. In chapter 18, when Sarah laughs at what god says about making her pregnant, he is written as if he is irritated by her disbelief, but in chapter 17 when Abraham laughed about becoming a father at one hundred years old, god didn't do anything to him. He makes Sarah go through the painful act of childbirth which he cursed upon the female gender in chapter three. These weirdly unequal actions continue with Hagar being tossed aside by Sarah and god reassuring Abraham that sending the mother of his first born son and his son away to almost death is perfectly fine and everything will still work out in god's master plan. The easiest explanation for god's actions in the old testament is the easiest answer ever. This was written by men to help explain why life was hard and why males deserved to be in power. It feels sexist to read this collection of stories today, but it worked for the humans that were seeking answers about the life they lead.
I actually found this reading to be quite interesting. Although I’ve only read the bible when I was a small child, by my mother, and small excerpts from attending church, I learned a lot and found many things very intriguing. The part I enjoyed reading the most was the very beginning of Genesis when it explained how God created the heaven and earth and all living things, how he created light and dark first and how he created man from his own image. I was a little unsure of that, however. Did God really create the first man to look just like him? What did this first human being look like? Over time, different depictions have been made of what God looked like but over several years, these depictions might have muddled what the original God looked like. I also wonder how much of this information is valid because it’s all been written by so many people and so many different times over the years, as we discussed in class. I’ve never really thought this in depth about the bible, which is probably because I’ve never read it with an open mind. I’ve never tried to make sense of it.
Something that was quite interesting to me was how the first woman was created. It’s crazy to think a person can be created from the rib of a male. Reading this made me a bit skeptical, but I’m open to the possibilities and if so many of these bibles were written by all these different people, it’s got to be true, unless all the people writing bibles have no idea and are just guessing what they think might’ve happened. It all seems so weird when you think about it though. The notion that a serpent told Adam and Eve not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge just baffles me. I do find it interesting reading, however, almost like a novel with genres of drama and action and science fiction. I do consider the bible a kind of literature because in my opinion, it is a bunch of stories, those stories may or may not be true but there’s love and death and drama just like in an actual novel so I do think of it as a piece of literature.
I was quite intrigued reading until I got to around the 5th chapter of Genesis explaining Adam’s line. It became pretty boring and too complicated, almost like a bunch of names were just being listed and I didn’t know who they were or how they related to Adam and Eve and that time period.
I realize that some people find the bible interesting and would prefer to read that over going to a sermon with an actual preacher, but for me, I personally feel that watching a preacher speak in a big open room is more interesting and I can much easily stay focused. When I’m reading from the book, it’s sometimes hard to focus and understand what I’m reading because it’s much less detailed and I have to read it myself rather than have a preacher yelling it to me.
There are several things to be said about the Bible if you read it critically. First of all is the comparison of what the bible actually says, and what people think it says. Growing up, I was raised Catholic, and went to church, and Sunday school, the whole nine yards. There are many things that I feel like I learned purely because my church leaders believed it. The forbidden fruit was most defiantly an apple. The snake was most defiantly Satan (or something of the like). And Eve was the first female created by God. But going back, and actually reading this, I find no mention of an apple, or even of Satan. They aren’t introduced at all in the Bible. I find this interesting that things that I grew up thinking are in the bible, aren’t actually there. And without critically reading it, I highly doubt I would’ve picked up on these facts.
Throughout all of my life, I’ve always heard how merciful and forgiving God was, and how he loved everything. But the Old Testament God is quite the opposite. So far, just in Genesis he’s wiped out the entire world, and smote two cities. And in the name of God, Abraham led an army, and gained many slaves, because of his devotion to God. It was interesting to me to see the difference in what my Sunday school taught me, and what I’m seeing on my own, so many years later.
There is much choosing when it comes to the Bible. The pope chooses what books go in, and what stay out for a lot of the part. But it is interesting to see how certain ideas don’t fit the Christian ways. When I was looking around a year or so ago, I came across the name Lilith. Apparently, Lilith was the very first woman, even before Eve. But, she was made from the same dust as Adam, and there for thought she was equal to him. She ran away from Adam, because she did not want to be submissive to him, and allow him to know her. She was then known as a demon, and was forgotten, and God made Eve, to be submissive for Adam. This reflects the underlying masculinity in the Bible, which was very much ingrained in our society, and still is to an extent.
Decoupling Genesis from It's Cultural Baggage pt. 1
1. Why do the characters God favors seem like bad people?
Although a myriad of names and family lines can be found in the first 26 chapters of Genesis, the text focuses on a specific, notable few to whom God seems to give favor and with whom he communicates. These men include Noah, Abraham and Lot. However, the actions of these three characters specifically do not paint them in a favorable light. Noah and his family are the only human beings on Earth allowed to survive the great flood in Genesis 6 and 7, because Noah was "a righteous man, blameless in his generation" (Genesis 6:9). Yet in Genesis 9, Noah gets drunk and proceeds to get naked, and when his son Ham sees him naked, he doesn't just curse Ham, he curses Ham's son Canaan and condemns him to slavery and all his descendants to slavery (9:25), which seems like a shockingly cruel punishment for such a minor infraction. Abraham, the man to whom God says "I will make of you a great nation" (12:2), is a slave owner, which is considered a pretty odious thing to be in contemporary society. Lot, a man singled out by God as being the only man worthy of surviving the destruction of Sodom and Gomor'rah in Genesis 19, offers to allow an angry mob of Sodomites to rape his two daughters in place of two strangers (19:8), which seems like a bizarrely callous thing to do by modern standards. So why does God favor these people with such horrible, ugly character traits? The answer to me seems to be that these characters' actions only seem so hideous to me because of my post enlightenment values and ideals. The idea of slavery being morally acceptable is a hard pill to swallow today, but slavery, based on how casually Abraham's slave ownership is addressed in Genesis, was pretty widely accepted in the time period in which that story was written. Similarly, doing such things to one's family as offering to let strangers rape them and cursing their entire family line because they accidentally saw one naked seems bizarre and unnecessarily cruel, but since Lot and Noah are both treated by the text as if they are righteous in their actions, I believe these actions would have been more culturally acceptible when Genesis was being composed by its various authors. In order to understand why God favors apparently rancid people in Genesis, we must understand that our perspective is inherently tainted by the culture in which we live.
Decoupling Genesis From Its Cultural Baggage pt. 2
2. What's up with that part about the Nephilim in Genesis 6?
From Genesis 6:1 to 6:4, there is a particularly baffling and cryptic passage about...well, it's not entirely clear when read within the vacuum of Genesis, without any outside context. Genesis 6:4 mentions that "the sons of God came in to the daughters of men" and that "the Nephilim were on the earth in those days" (Nephilim being another word for giants), but these events are never referenced ever again in Genesis and never elaborated upon, so what do they mean and what is the point of their inclusion? The answer lies in an apocryphal text: The Book of Enoch. The Book of Enoch gives an expanded recounting of the events of Genesis 6:1 to 6:4, explaining that some of the sons of God (Angels) became tempted by human women and had sex with them, which produced giant, destructive Nephilim offspring. Without this information, though, the story fragment in Genesis 6 has no real meaning or purpose, which indicates to me either that 6:1 to 6:4 are a reference to the Book of Enoch, or the Book of Enoch was meant as a supplement to an incomplete text. Either way, this supports a theory of the Bible having multiple authors. I happened to be aware of the Book of Enoch and its contents while reading 6:4 to 6:5. Even though the contents of the Book of Enoch might not be common cultural knowledge, it is outside baggage I brought to my reading of Genesis and it would have been very easy for me to assume that 6:4 to 6:9 make sense in this context by assuming the Book of Enoch to be a part of the same text, but what it is important to realize is that even though the Book of Enoch is a related text, it was not chosen as a part of the Biblical continuity, and for all intents and purposes it's events never happened in the exclusive context of Genesis. In leaving my outside suppositions about the Genesis story behind, the reality of the multiple authorship of the Bible was more distinctly defined.
We encounter the phrase in the “image of god” in the very first chapter of Genesis on page 1, where it is stated “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him.” There are many different ways this phrase can be interpreted. My way of interpreting this is in more of a symbolic way instead of a literal way such as that god might look like a human. I believe this saying is a veiled astrologically based idea. Vast majority of major religious traditions of antiquity (prior to Christianity) are deeply based in astrological principles, including Judaism (referring to the Kabbalistic tree of life for example). Considering Genesis is the Torah, a piece of Judaic scripture, it would not be implausible that this is indeed an astrologically based creationist reference, and it is actually quite probable when you consider how fundamental astrological ideas are to the Sefer Yetzira (The Book of Creation/Formation, the Kabbalah) and the core of the Jewish religion. With that said, to break down the phrase; God is usually associated with heaven, and heaven is commonly associated with the skies, or that which is above our earthly sphere. In the vast majority of cultures and religions of antiquity, the celestial bodies (planets and stars) are what composed the heavens where God, or Gods for polytheistic cultures, resided (many times the gods of various ancient pantheons actually represented said celestial bodies, such as in Greek and Roman paganism, to name a couple). Throughout these various religious traditions, it was commonly believed that man was composed of those heavenly bodies, or “gods,” as various organs and temperaments were of certain planetary or astrological influences. In other words, according to such astrological traditions, the formation of man's body and temperament are directly affected by those celestial bodies (“gods”). With that said, and the fact that Jewish mysticism is steeped in Astrology, it is highly probable that the phrase created in the “image of God” is a veiled astrological reference to man being created in the image of celestial influences.
ReplyDeleteOn a different note, I did not bring this up in the class discussion, so I felt I would post it here in the blog. There is another way that some Jewish/Hebrew scholars approach reading the Old Testament, although this method is not a way of actually reading the outright text, but 'decoding it' so to speak to look for secret messages. This is not a literal way of reading it, but is an interesting topic which has yielded some interesting results, so I thought I would blog about it to bring it up to those who may not be familiar with this. Some people in this class may have heard of the “Bible Code” or the “Torah Code.” What those refer to are coded messages hidden within the original Hebrew Torah. It is important to understand that the Jews consider Hebrew to be a mystical language, with various unique aspects to the language (such as gematria, which means words of the same numeric value are directly related to each other (IE “god” and “love” in Hebrew have the same numeric value, so God would then be equal to love because of that connection). Also, the Torah is supposed to be given to humanity directly from God through Moses, which makes it a holy and mystical text to the Jews. Taking both of those points into context, it is believed that various secret messages and information can be extracted from the Torah using these methods. What they do is take the scripture, then form a grid using ELS, or equa-distant letter spacing, where they take a symbol at a given regular interval to form a grid just like a crossword puzzle. Then they search this grid for words and names to find secret messages within the grids. Many interesting results have been produced using this method, and there are many Rabbis who have dedicated their lives to this study. With that said, my post here does not do this topic justice, and for those who are interested in this topic, you should google for more in depth explinations.
Why did God praise Abel and not Cain?
ReplyDeleteWhy was God confused over Cain's reaction of sadness and killing his brother Abel?
Why did Eve say Cain was of the Lord and not of Adam?
Many people so far have mentioned learning about Christianity, growing up with it, and living by the church's ideals. What they haven't said is that they had read the bible. I, like most people learned these religious stories orally first. The Bible is very much an oral epic, like The Book of Gilgamesh and The Iliad. For most of European tradition of the Bible. it was told orally because people were illiterate and the Bible was written in unpopular languages like Aramaic, Hebrew or Latin. This means that the stories didn't stay true. All children who have played the telephone game know, when a phrase is passed on by word of mouth it changes to reflect the person who speaks it and will continue to change because the previous person's changes.
I learned the stories of the Bible at night. They were my child hood bed time fables. I was sung the Our Father at nap time. The Bible was a strong presence in my family, like many children across the globe. I always thought I knew them well, but I had never read the Bible until ninth grade. I learned quickly that I had no understanding of any of the stories that I thought I knew by heart. The rereading of the story of Cain and Abel was confusing because I never pondered why Abel was so much more loved by God, or why he received praise and why Cain didn't and was driven to sin. Small sentences are used a lot for emphasis, and this short story is no exception. The problem with this is that so much detail is left out and there is too much room for interpretation.
When I first heard the story of Cain and Abel, I was told God loved Abel more because Abel was more devout and that Cain was too prideful. It doesn't say that anywhere in the story. It does say that Cain grew crops and Abel tended to the sheep. God is many times referred to as a shepard and I have to wonder if it is because there is something better about a shepard than a farmer. shepards make more money, but otherwise I wouldn't say there is anything inherently bad about farming, or good about shepards. I do like shepards, especially the adorable yodelers.
Cain and Abel both gave offerings to God. Cain gave produce and Abel gave some of the first born of his flock. Abel was rewarded by God and when Cain was not, he became downcast. This is a sign of favoritism and I have to believe that the reason Cain was so sad was because he could see this in God. That he was less loved. I have to wonder if God drove Cain to kill Abel. God is an omniscient all encompassing power and is deliberately involving himself with this new civilization that has little knowledge and very little experience of the world. These people must have been very sheltered and completely ignorant of the repercussions of their actions. It doesn't seem like they would know of death or what a tragedy it would be. If God knew that Cain would be jealous and would attack his brother like many children do because of jealously, why would he have done it. To teach a lesson? What lesson could demand such a sacrifice?
ReplyDeleteMany times in the Bible the first born is more sacred. Why is that? Is it because God have Eve the ability to give birth? But then isn't the first born supposed to be a punishment because birth is a punishment. Is then Cain a punishment to Even and Adam and Abel a bystander? I couldn't understand the necessity to dub one child better by birth than the other but Eve does say the Cain is born of God and doesn't say the same for Abel. I have to wonder is Eve the reason God doesn't love Cain as much? When Eve said what she did about Cain was that inciting wrath from God onto him?
There are too many possibilities to interpret the Bible correctly. Any implications are only guesses and will only ever be perceived that way because the writers of the Bible are long dead and will never be able to explain their word choice. I wish they were because then there wouldn't be a need to ponder the possibilities so much and our homework would have been much easier.
Week 2 Blog
ReplyDeleteInterpreting the bible is always a touchy subject. It is hard to interpret and criticize it while trying not to offend anyone who follows it deeply. Me, not being a religious person, finds it difficult to read this and find a reason to believe it. The stories in Genesis are just a little bit too ridiculous for me. It comes off as a very fictional work to me, no more real than something such as Star Wars. When reading it as text, and not as a piece of religion, it seems to me that God is made out to be the antagonist. He is the one who is very controlling of the earth, he commands what people should do, and punishes those who strive to have freedom. He punishes Adam and Eve for, what the theme makes it out to be, seeking out knowledge and concept. Genesis makes God out to be very overpowering and controlling.
The main theme I received from these readings is creation and destruction. It shows how God created the world, and from there humanity with the creation of Adam and Eve. When Adam and Eve defy him he punishes them with things like painful childbirth and work, things that our society is still doing today. Then with the story of Noah, God is annoyed with humanity and plans to flood the world. He is destroying the world he created to start off fresh with Noah starting the new world. The reading go through a lot of changes, but the main concept is creation and beginnings.
Genesis, God, and Humanity
ReplyDeleteAustin Stone
Humanities 1
Dr. Akman
Throughout most of the assigned section of Genesis the text seems to follow a particular structural pattern. First, a story is narrated and characters are introduced; then, a genealogy often comes after. What is the effect of this pattern, both on understanding the themes of the text and as a critical reading of this specific section?
To begin I found this pattern to be easily noticeable, if not obvious, in my reading of these chapters. It begins shortly after Cain and Abel are introduced, as shortly after learning of Cain’s crimes the reader learns of his offspring. Also worth noting is the type of story placed in between this seemingly out-of-place family trees. Many of these stories are larger-than-life stories: Cain killing Abel, Noah and his Arc, the Tower of Babel, and the Abram’s relationship with God. There are multiple instances in the chapters discussing Abram where the story actually stops to explain where some of the characters and their extended families end up. This pattern, then, was influential in my analysis of this text. When it comes to the themes of the text, the breaks to discuss family lines made it more difficult to see the different stories as pieces of a whole. While these different tales are not meant to line up perfectly with each other, it would be easier to see the connections between them without the lists of names that follow each one. Also most of the names are not even mentioned in the preceding stories, and in the cases where the names might be familiar with the reader, the genealogy goes into much deeper detail than necessary to offer background information. It causes the text to lose the sense of fluidity. Looking at Genesis from a critical perspective, these genealogies make it difficult to take the text serious. Unless the reader is familiar with the people mentioned in these lists, and I certainly am not, they appear unrelated and basically nonsensical. It is very difficult to pull some meaning out of these portions of Genesis, and therefore they are useless when looking from a critical perspective.
Early in Genesis, God establishes interaction with humanity. This changes throughout the text, however, as it seems that God treats each group/generation differently. What are some of the qualities of God’s relationship with humanity?
Throughout God’s interactions with specific people in the text, one thing stays constant: God is always treated as an all-powerful, all-knowing individual that must be feared. God even tests Abraham to make sure he fears him, requiring him to sacrifice his son. Before Abraham is successful an angel steps in, stating, “…now I know that you fear God.” (Genesis 22.12) While the people’s perspective of God stays constant, God seems to change his mind frequently when dealing with humanity. Beginning with Adam and Eve and the tree of knowledge, God creates this idea of limiting humanity. This continues with the Tower of Babel as God states, “Come, let us go down, and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.” (Genesis 11.7) In between these two narratives, God destroys all of humanity with a giant flood. But, as the reader sees after the flood with Noah and later on with Abraham and Isaac, God is also willing to make covenants with individuals. At times it seems God is almost hasty to do so, promising many ancestors and great nations to some men. The bottom line is that I found God’s treatment of humanity to be inconsistent. I had never questioned it before because, in my previous readings of Genesis, I held the assumption that God was omnipotent and unquestionable. But, when God is understood as another character in the story, this inconsistency becomes harder to justify.
ReplyDeleteMike Gole
Humn 220
Professor Akman
January 29, 2013
Blog Entry 2
Why is the Bible such an important work in Western Humanities?
I would be shocked to find a many people in America who are unfamiliar with the Bible. Regardless of how much of it they have read, the vast majority of Americans have at least heard of the Bible, and many are likely familiar with some of its stories. This makes the Bible a logical place to start when teaching Western humanities. Regardless of whether or not one believes the Bible to be a holy text, one cannot deny the impact that the Bible has had on Western civilizations. In an area dominated by Christianity, the Bible is undoubtedly one of the most influential books in the entire history of what we consider to be “western civilizations.” As such, I believe it is important for even non-believers to read the Bible as a piece of literature with significant historical importance.
What meaning does the Bible hold to those who do not consider it a Holy text?
As stated above, there are few “non-believers” who would argue that the Bible has not had a massive impact on world history, specifically the history of western civilizations. Therefore, I believe that, to gain a better understanding of many of the events that have transpired in history, one should familiarize oneself with the Bible, regardless of whether or not they believe. Especially when one goes on to study poetry, Shakespeare, or various other fields, an understanding of the Bible will be key to understanding allusions frequently made in these works.
If God was attempting to keep mankind ignorant, was this truly for the best?
In class, someone asked why God forbid Adam and Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. I found this to be an interesting question, and one that, as someone who was raised in a fairly strong Christian environment, I would honestly rather ignore than answer. However, when looked at objectively, it becomes clear that there are several possibilities behind God’s rationale. The first consideration is that God seems to be very big on having control. Again, as someone mentioned in class, he turned Lot’s wife into a pillar of salt for disobeying him in what seemed to be a very trivial way. Perhaps, in a way similar to this, God was attempting to exert his dominance over man by keeping them from eating from the Tree of Knowledge. The other possibility to consider is that God may have been trying to save mankind from having to deal with the burden of knowledge, and the burden of fully understanding the nature of good and evil.
Blog 2 Genesis
ReplyDeleteDanelle Turney
01/29/13
Genesis 1-26
"In the beginning..." when reading this for the first time, it is striking that the stories are written in such a simplistic manner. A lot of the lines repeat, and it almost reminded me of a refrain in a poem. For example, when explaining the days and steps of creation, it would end with "...and it was so" (genesis 1). The repeating of such lines may have been to put what was occuring during creation into perspective. God was creating all that is known by man today in regards to nature and was doing it in such an easy, matter-of-fact manner, that the repeated "...and it was so" line is intended to portray that what God wants to occur, will occur with minimal effort from Him. Also, the way in which the paragraphs are set up is interesting too. It appears to be that the authors will set up the story within the first few sections and then pinpoint one particular instance next. When talking about Adam and Eve, they are first brought up when "...God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them..." (Genesis 2). Then it went on to describe His first conversations with Adam and how Eve came to be.
Some of the people mentioned almost seem to be there simply for acknowledgment's sake. Genesis will list six or seven people to pick out the honorable mentions and the rest will be forgotten. I am not completely sure what the point of these listings are except maybe to keep track of the lineage of the first people on Earth. It also seems that maybe this was how particular nations came to be. A man would have so many sons in a particular place, and then that was where their people dwelled for the rest of time.
One of the things that confused me the most was when Adam and Eve had two sons Abel and Cain, and once Abel was out of the picture, Cain went about his business as a wanderer and found himself a wife somewhere. Where did this woman come from if Cain and Abel are the only two children Adam and Eve had? The only thing I can think of is that God created more than just Adam and Eve at first, but like later on in Genesis, Adam was a chosen one out of many.
The Bible is noteworthy, in part, because it has arguably influenced more literature than any other single work. This includes everything from classics like Beowulf and the Canterbury Tales to modern fantasy such as the Chronicles of Narnia. However, what I find interesting is not comparing the Bible to later works, but to stories that precede it or are otherwise separated from it.
ReplyDeleteThe Epic of Gilgamesh predates the Bible, and it includes a story of a flood created by a deity meant to cleanse the Earth of the human civilization. What can be inferred from this? Was Noah’s story adapted from the Epic of Gilgamesh? Are these two historical documents indicating an actual flood occurred? Does this speak to the fear of water the river valley civilizations of the time had? Knowing that other cultures have stories of floods, I infer that the people who populated the river valley civilizations throughout history viewed them as destructive and unpredictable, which made stories of apocalyptic deluges very believable.
The creation story in Genesis is very similar to other creation stories. The Greeks believed that after a man was created he was given a woman as companion. Furthermore, she ruined the perfect home they had been given by the gods when she was tempted to disobey the gods, opening Pandora’s Box against their explicit instructions. In the Iroquois’s creation myth, there was a civilization of people who lived in the sky where everyone was happy and a tree that gave them all light. A woman living on this island in the sky became pregnant with twins, which infuriated her husband. He ripped up the tree that gave them light, and the woman, curious, peered down the hole where the tree used to be. She was then pushed down it, falling to Earth, where she gave birth to a good twin and a bad twin.
The consistency with which women caused humans to lose their position in a perfect society is very telling as to who wrote the stories. I infer from association with trees and light and knowledge that trees were known for their age in previous civilizations, and associated their age with wisdom. The story of the two brothers fighting reminds me of Cain and Abel. I wonder why seeking knowledge and being curious was seen as a dangerous character trait.
Just like viewing the Bible alone, viewing many creation stories at once can be interpreted spiritually. Some believe that all religions have some truth to them, and use the similarities between religions that were never in contact with one another as evidence to support the idea that they creators of these stories were divinely inspired. Personally, I try to look for insight into human nature. I think we all want to belong to something, and we like blaming others for not having what we want. I think we fear what we don’t understand, and want to makes sense of tragedies.
In a world where religions are known for the problems they cause, reading Genesis and thinking about why people may have liked these teachings was a good reminder for me. I forget that there is a reason why religions were created. People needed something to believe in when surrounded by uncertainty. I can’t say whether or not religion has been a positive influence the world, but it seems that people all across the world have been drawn to similar beliefs, and I like to think it has served them well, even if I can’t find any comfort in it myself.
Jessica Bourdage Week 2
ReplyDeleteStrange Power
Why is the bible so repetitive? When reading the bible I couldn’t help but notice how much phrases are repeated. In class we talked about how translations can change the meaning of the work. The bible happens to be one of the most translated pieces and has many different authors. Perhaps this is why things happen to repeat themselves. Or perhaps it adds emphasis to the work. In the first part of Genesis, God creates things and for each day the author repeats “there was evening and there was a morning” to show the passing of time. In many different sections it seems to just list a whole bunch of names of people who were the sons of this person. It goes on until you have a whole family tree. In part 5 of Genesis, it just lists the generations of Adam. It lists how long they lived and their sons and says “he died.” I feel that the repetition and the info is unnecessary. Background is always good for any story but every small detail doesn’t have to be included. I felt that it was a bit too much info on all of these different people and their sons that wasn’t really relevant to the story. It might have been more effective to have simplified it in order to get from Seth to Noah.
How is the Lord portrayed? The Lord creates man and woman in his image. He talks to Abraham about making Abraham the father of a multitude of nations. The Lord seems to favor the people who are part of his covenant. It’s almost like an exclusive club. In order to be a part of his “club” you have to adhere to his rules. He says, “Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.” (pg. 13) The Lord also seems to be bias in the Exodus. He favors the Israelis over the Egyptians. He recruits Moses to help free his people yet the Lord also hardens the heart of the Pharaoh, making him refuse the Israelis from leaving. The Lord makes a statement with the Pharaoh and his men to show his power when he drowns them in the Red Sea. He also decides to kill all the first borns. The people sing “terror and dread fall upon them because of the greatness of thy arm.” (pg. 61) He does these acts to make people believe and show his power but does that justify killing people to make his point? Does he have the right to kill since he is the one who has created man? In the story of the flood, the Lord sees that the people he has created have become wicked and evil so he decides to create the flood. He wants to “blot out man” because he’s “sorry that he made them” (pg. 5) He succeeds in creating the flood whether it be wrong or right it’s in his power.
Is the bible all positive? The stories in Genesis are not all delightful. Some deal with some strange events. Instead of letting the men of Sodom use the men that came to him, Lot instead tells them that he “has two daughters who have not known man; let me bring them out to you and do to them as you please.” (pg. 14) Lot was willing to protect the men than his own flesh and blood. This shows a bit of sexism like in other parts such as with Adam and Eve when the Lord says “In pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” (pg. 3)There is even more disturbing parts when Lot and his family flees to a cave. His eldest daughter comes up with a plan to sleep with their father in order to produce offspring. She tells the younger, “Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve offspring through our father.” (pg. 15) In Genesis, fathers seem to be willing to do horrible things to their children for the Lord. The previous example of Lot giving up his daughters instead of the men shows this. Another example is when Abraham brings his son, Isaac, up a mountain and plans to use him as a sacrifice before God stops him and instead produces a ram for the sacrifice.
Matthew Keller - Week 2 Response - PART I
ReplyDeleteQuestions to be considered: Does the Bible's status as a religious text mean that criticism should be withheld? What lessons, as a non-believer, can be drawn from the text in a non-literal sense? How do these lessons stand up to modern life and humanist ideals?
Who's up for a game of hypotheticals? Let's say we have a book -- not just any book, but a best-selling book. Any will do - just picture it in your head, full of engaging story lines and relatable characters who are just so easy to cheer for. Now, lets say that this book has scores of devoted fans - more numerous than Randian objectivists and more personally enamored than any Tolkien fan. Would you, as a individual with an interest in thinking critically about the literature before you, consider the (undoubtedly strong) feelings of that particular group of fanatics? No! No you would not, shrieking hordes of incorrigible lunatics be damned. It could be said that those who view the work as so thoroughly faultless are probably not interested in good-natured discussion, and instead just pointless adulation. It is here where I draw my stance on the Bible as literature: the idea that the Bible can escape real pointed criticism simply because of it's exalted position as holy scripture is, to me, the very antithesis of literary critique. I recognize that the people who would consider the Bible as a piece of literature would in all likelihood agree, and those who don't probably view it as unimpeachable direction from big-g God himself. I suppose this rather brash treatment of the text comes easy to me, a self-described secular humanist with no real concept of divinity outside of "someone said God did it". Without meaningful critique, how can unique and personal meaning (and as such, salvation) be found? Or is that not the point of the soi-disant "personal savior" which Christianity (and other Abrahamic religions) prides itself on?
Seeing as asking questions into the great faceless aether of the internet seldom results in concrete answers, I shall move on to what can be drawn from the scriptures, even as an atheist. The most evident thing to me was, that at its very heart, the Bible is all about knowledge -- both the proliferation, and control thereof. The first chapters of Genesis address the most common conundrum in man's history: creation. The desire to know just who we are and where we came from is very base, yet still admirable from the standpoint of those living in antiquity. It demonstrates that, just as so many other religions before it, Judaism (and later Christianity) is primarily based in the pursuit of explaining the world around us, by whatever means are apparent. This is heartening to someone like me, who can so easily fall into a wholly cynical view of religion and its trappings and more easily illustrates that religion is about attempting to more wholly understand each other, and not simply a means of mass control, a popular notion amongst jaded atheists. Another big time lesson put forth is the importance of reverence towards figures of authority as a facet of piousness-- be it parents, a slave's master, or God himself, those who follow are infinitely more likely to prosper, and those who deviate are swiftly punished. These examples are probably where non-believers draw their cynicism from -- rightfully so, if you are not keen on annihilating cities, or pillars of salt.
Matthew Keller Part II
ReplyDeleteTaking a stance as a humanist, this is where I take the greatest umbrage with what is contained within the scripture. It is central to my worldview that humanity, and not a divine force, is wholly responsible for the good and evil present in the world today. So, every time that a figure is reprimanded for being, well, HUMAN, I am reminded why I, nor anyone in my family can be described as "devout". Adam and Eve are expelled from Eden for stumbling upon knowledge of good and evil -- a moral dichotomy that every human is aware of today. In a world like today, where information is so essential to being part of society, this initial lesson taught by God seems not only tyrannical, but outright cruel. Why offer the temptation of knowledge if you were just going to use it as an excuse for expulsion? Unless, of course, the plan was to have humanity leave the garden in the first place, at which point you begin to question whether this God fellow really is all that kind. Questioning and curiosity are two of the most important parts of the human condition, and the suppression of such pursuits is indicative to me that somewhere along the line, someone became very insecure about the ability of religion to actually keep its adherents.
Amanda Thomas
ReplyDeleteHumn 220
Akman
Blog #2
Why Read the Bible as a piece of literature?
Many people can form different understanding on what literature is and what should be read in a class as teaching material. The bible is one when many people try to stay away from it as it can touch some many different people in different ways. But reading the bible can open new things and ideas that can have an important role in how a literature class works. When reading the bible you can learn what is like to understand not only a different culture but also how the culture itself affects the religion. Interpreting the bible as literature can also become a challenge. When trying to do a cultural understanding one looks at major books such as Genesis and how it is told how the earth is created. Understanding this can mean lead to many other ideas such as how when people were so new to earth they could do what they did? Or Why did humans act the way they did and lead to some many different civilizations and cultures around the world today? Literature can be seen as a written work that defines language, period or a certain culture. The bible fits in this because it talks about a certain culture, the creation of earth and the belief in God and religion of Christianity, and led to Muslim and the Jewish traditions can find some roots from each other. What is role of Women According to the Book of Genesis in the Bible? The role of women throughout history has been challenged and changed many different times. Eve in the bible can be seen as a person who wants to follow rules but what to test the knowledge of man as well. Being told not to eat from the tree of life being a woman she challenges this and is then forced upon by good that she will become responsible for childbirth. She takes this as a simple thing in life and puts up no fight. Being women she feels a sense of challenge and that she must prove herself. Sarah can be seen as the same way when she is told that she will have a baby. She responses by laughing and saying I am to old, but she does not but up a fight and does give birth to a son. Then can both be seen has having a sense of life that they need to show that they are women and can be the same as man. Man always holds a higher priority. Adam can be seen to being in charge of Eve but when God confronts him about eating the fruit he blames Eve. He places the blame on a women because he cannot be seen as disobeying God. This shows that women create a bad reputation just because men will do anything to show they are not failures and women are. What is the importance of the bible in a civilization or culture? The book of Genesis in the Bible can have many different symbols and how cultures can be affected by the meanings. The tree of life can show that mankind came from a single sprout or leaf of the tree. As the tree grew so did the civilizations and the trust in God everywhere. The creation of man the destroying man with flood can show that God was not happy with his creation and he wants to start over similar to how as one civilization die out another comes along and is better and learns from the previous mistakes. The importance can be that reading and interpreting the Bible can lead to understand what ones role in a culture can be. Creating something out of one’s life can come from what one interprets the bible to be and how important it is in their life.
Since this is the most sold book in the world it must have great importance to our lifestyles. However, it is also one of the most unread books so what does that mean? Many people today follow Christianity and believe in Christ. Therefore, most people would expect others to have read the Bible if that is the book of their beliefs. Most people don’t read the bible straight through and instead focus on various stories throughout the bible that have symbolic references to our lives and are learning experiences, especially for children to read and understand in Sunday School. I myself do not believe in God but as a child I was baptized, confirmed to my church, and went through youth group. So while I read these passages from the Bible I definitely see it in a literary perspective. I find it interesting but at some points to extraordinary to be believable. However, I feel this book has a lot to offer for different groups of people no matter what religion you believe in or not believe in. One could sit and ponder what one passage means for hours and never fully understand it which makes this book a great book to read. There are many different ways to interpret these passages which will increase the fun in discussing it even if some people do not believe it to be true. To conclude this, I am excited to find out how other students in the class reflected on such a broad topic like this in the upcoming passages of Exodus and Job.
ReplyDeleteWhether or not you are Christian, you have most likely heard at least one story from the Bible. The Bible is one of the best selling and most referenced texts of all time and is important in studying the humanities. I had never read the Bible before and reading Genesis was an interesting experience. If we read the Bible as literature from a critical perspective, we can uncover symbolism as well as analyze the characters the genres in the text.
ReplyDeleteDid God intend for Adam and Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge?
One topic of interest from Genesis is the tree of good and evil. In class we discussed whether or not God assumed that humans would ever eat fruit from the tree. If God didn’t want any humans to eat from this tree, what was the purpose of him putting it there in the first place? If Adam and Eve had never eaten the forbidden fruit, then it appears their lives would be very easy. Adam and Eve may not have been intended to eat the fruit but perhaps God had anticipated that someone would eventually eat from the tree of knowledge. I personally think it is the latter option. God seems to lose some control over humanity as the offspring of Adam and Eve grow up. First, there is the Cain and Able story and then God chooses to “make an end of all flesh” (p.5) because the Earth was too corrupt and violent. If this corruptness and violence were in fact caused by the original sin of eating the forbidden fruit, then it seems that God was not prepared for the consequences.
What are the genres in the Bible?
Another interesting discussion from class was about the different genres in the Bible. Genesis clearly contains elements of many varieties of contemporary styles such as horror stories and dramas. The drama between Abraham, Sarah and Hagar is sure to come up in many modern movies, shows and probably quite frequently in reality as well. I think that drawing modern day parallels is a useful tool in reading the Bible as literature. If the Bible is read from a literary standpoint as opposed to a religious perspective, then we can critically analyze all the characters, including God. Even God exhibits characteristics seen in dramas and horror stories. Vengeance, wrath, jealously are a few examples. In Genesis, God nearly wipes out the entire planet yet then tells Noah to repopulate the Earth. God is still the supreme power of all but the character of God is not always in complete control. In this way, reading the Bible from a critical literary view opens the door for a lot of new questions and angles for analysis.
Genesis
ReplyDeleteThe book of Genesis focusses on the creation of man and of the expansion of man under God’s covenant. Genesis begins with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. The chapter focuses on how Eve is tricked by the snake to eat fruit from the Tree of Knowledge and then give some to Adam. The two realize they are naked and immediately hasten to clothe themselves before God arrives. When God learns that they have disobeyed him he makes it so childbirth would be a painful process for Eve and all women and banishes Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden. In this section Adam and Eve demonstrate the human thirst for knowledge and the curiosity to defy the rules in the quest for that knowledge. In some ways this section demonstrates some common qualities that all humans share.
After their banishment from the Garden of Eden they gave birth to their son Cain followed by Abel. One day in anger Cain killed Abel and makes him “a fugitive and a wanderer of the earth”. Cain went forth married and produced offspring, including Noah (pg.4). When God saw how wicked man had become he decided to flood the earth sparing only Noah and his descendants. In this section the violence that Cain demonstrated when he jealously murdered his brother was shone in most of his descendants requiring God to annihilate their evil from the world.
Of Noah’s descendants were Abram, who went with his wife Sarai and his nephew Lot in following God’s orders to the land of Canaan. While in Canaan, Abram ventured to Egypt and angered the Pharaoh after it was revealed that the woman he claimed was his sister was really his wife Sarai. After he left Egypt as a very rich man, Abram and Sarai settled in the area. However Abram’s wife, Sarai, could not provide him any children so instead she had her Egyptian maid, Hagar, conceive her husband child instead. Later after Abram spoke with God his name became Abraham and Sarai became Sarah. God allowed Sarah to conceive a child, who would be called Isaac as God had instructed. This chapter was surprising since Abraham and Sarah were always portrayed to me as being good and the qualities I have seen in this section, such as infidelity and jealousy, are not exactly what I would call good.
Further away in Sodom two angels arrive, whose mission is to destroy the city for its outcry. But before this is done the angels spare Lot, Noah’s nephew, and his daughters and take them away from the city. After fleeing Zoar Lot went up into the hills with his daughter where both of them got their father to consume wine and impregnate them, resulting in them giving birth to their fathers children. In this section; I wondered why did the city need to be destroyed, surely there was another solution to get these men to change their ways instead of simply killing them.
Meanwhile Sarah gave birth to Abraham’s son Isaac, after which she had her maid, Hagar, banished since Sarah now had her own child and had no further need of hers. God decided to test Abraham and ordered him to take his son Isaac up to the Land of Moriah and sacrifice him. Abraham passed the test when he was willing to sacrifice his son, whom he did not have to sacrifice on the order of an Angel. In exchange for passing his test God blessed Abraham and multiplied his descendants.
After Sarah died Abraham decided that he needed to find a wife for his son Isaac and sent out his servant to his homeland to find and wife for his son and bring her back to Canaan. So the servant left and after arriving in his master’s homeland prayed to God to assist him in his quest. God answered his prayer and the servant found Rebekah and brought her back to Canaan to become wife to Isaac. In the final sections I found it unnerving that Rebekah would so willingly go with a strange man to a land she had never been to be married to someone she had never met. In today’s society such an occurrence is unheard of. While I find it hard to believe that such events that were told in Genesis actually happened, I am not yet prepared to declare that it is false.
Coming into Humanities, I have never read the Bible; I barely even laid a hand on a Bible before in my life. I have only stepped into a Church three times, once to watch a friend perform in a choir, and the other two times with my girlfriend and her family when they went to Sunday mass on the days I stayed over. So as you can see, my exposure to the Christian religion, let alone religion in it of itself, is minimal, to say the least. So seeing both the Bible and the Qur’an on the book list was a challenge I was willing to accept. I have wanted to test the waters, and see what everyone has been talking about, and this class has given me a reason to pick these books up.
ReplyDeleteReading Genesis, and the Bible itself, as a work of literature, was not as hard as I had thought it was going to be. Before opening up the Bible, I had expected something along the lines of reading Shakespeare, language that I could barely make out. But the Bible was a surprisingly easy read. This may be the immense popularity of the book, as it is the most sold book of all time. In order to have this success, translators must have had translated the book not just word for word, but in a way that would have the average reader come back to the book. But that comes with a trade-off, as much of the Bible’s meaning is lost due to the many times it has been translated, whether sections were reworded to help the public better understand, or whole sections were removed due to distinct tastes. And not only did the translators change the meaning behind many sections in the Bible, but the many parts of the Bible seem to have many inconsistencies. Many sections seem to speak of one thing, but the section after may just disregard what was just said. This is evident very early on, when Genesis speaks of the creation of Adam and Eve. It was said God created both male and female in his own image, but later on in Genesis it was depicted that female was created from the rib of Adam, therefore stating that female was created in the image of male.
When I finished reading Genesis, the God that was depicted was not the God that I had heard about from many of my religious friends, nor the God that my uncle, who is a pastor at his own church, speaks of. The God they all speak of is a benevolent God, one who forgives man when they sin, as long as they confess and recognize the harms they have done. The God depicted in Genesis comes across to me as a very spiteful and vengeful God, one who has no tolerance for sinning. This God would destroy cities that are filled with humans who have sinned, and would even destroy every form of life because evil has grown in the world. If this God were present in our life, all sinners would be evaporated on the spot, and there would be no need for jails. This God also comes across to me as bias. He picks his favorites among the human race. He chose Noah to lead the arc which saved all things of flesh on the Earth. He also choose Abraham as his favorite, and even allowed for him to trick him at times. God also made promises of infinite lands and riches to the followers who did as he said. These traits are not traits that I would envision God having. He should be non-partial, omnipotent, and forgiving, as he is depicted today.
Humanities with a Global Approach
ReplyDeleteRobert Lawton
Week 2 – The Bible Part 1
As this class is Humanities with a Global Approach I am looking to view the Bible from a different perspective. I believe, perhaps too proudly, that I have a very unique perspective. As a pseudo-American who was adopted in my early teens by a Laos family, who themselves had come over as political refugees at the charity of a local church I was not raised with traditional American outlooks on society and religion. I attended church periodically with various foster families, but never received a consistent Christian indoctrination. Instead, from that time when I was taken in as a refugee of sorts myself I began attending temple. I identified as Buddhist from that point on, and forsook the church proper. As we grew up my siblings began to shift away from the traditional temple. Some became more avidly Christian, and others took on the new American religion of agnosticism. I was disappointed in this, as I felt it a step back for them. I was proudly Buddhist. However, when I was asked what that meant I could say very little about it. I did not speak enough Laos to understand much of what was said in temple. Religious language in any language is different from the secular, especially the string of curse words I primarily employed in speaking Laos. I decided I needed to explore what being ‘Buddhist’ actually was, and why I did not want to be Christian.
This decision led me to explore both religions from a standpoint of having a little bit of knowledge in each. I had seen Christmas movies, and I had seen Little Buddha. As I immersed myself in the Western Dharma culture I heard people say 2 things, very different things, about Buddhism. Some held it was a religion, while others said it was only a philosophy. Everyone agreed Christianity was a religion, but could not agree on the Dharma (Buddhism to non-Buddhists). The question becomes, “What is religion?” In my opinion, the early books of the bible clearly define, or at least provide the characteristics of a religion. Some are shared, others are not. Fundamentally there are some extreme differences.
Lawton part 2
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning… there is creation of Christianity, in Christianity. This does not exist in Buddhism, where the need for a creation story does not exist. Many religions around the world though have this as a fundamental of their beliefs. While it is entirely possible to believe in God and not creationism, the fact that the metaphor of God’s power is still in (and accepted) the Bible is core to the idea of a religion – there must be something else out there, beyond the power of man that is making stuff happen. Whether we can understand it or not, explain it or let it remain a mystery a religion would seem to need a creation. The Bible starting with a creation theory seems to say that from the beginning of the world (from your faith) God is there, God is present, and God is in control. This is the antithesis of Dharma, which maintains that it is not necessary to know where things came from, but only to think about where it is going.
Genesis continues with the creation of Man, and to a lesser extent woman. They partake of the forbidden fruit and damn is all for eternity, unless God saves us of course. And to do that we once again have to surrender ourselves to his power. Again, this concept only marginally exists within Buddhism. In the Dharma as taught by Buddha there is suffering, but there is a cause to suffering, an end to suffering, and of course a method to end suffering. While this is a different approach than Christianity, this is where the religiosity of Buddhism steps in. There is a way to rise above our mortal shackles (Samsara) and break from the cycle of suffering and non-suffering to achieve a state beyond. Technically this is the Three Bodies of the Buddha, which coincidentally is not too dissimilar to the Trinity.
The Bible has a list of genealogy, a way to verify the authenticity so to speak of the words within. This shows how old and important it is. These people lived hundreds of years by the grace of God, even though by that time they were well incorporated with original sin. The Dharma, especially the Tibetan tradition is also very fond of tracing lineages. Ostensibly it is a way to know the authenticity of a text or teaching, but the key to the Dharmic approach is that we are always taught by the texts to question our teachings. As Buddha says “Study my words like a goldsmith for flaws and only use what is deemed pure.” Much of this has been forgotten by current Dharma practitioners as Buddha has become an religion of following and not questioning.
The question becomes, is religion about following or is it about learning and growing? Is it about community and shared heritage? Is religion material or spiritual? Christianity has it’s prophets and saints, and so does Buddhism. Christianity has a holy book (one book to rule them all) and Buddhism has its own texts. While there is no creation theory, there is much else in common. In the end the basic systems of beliefs differ to greatly for them to be called the same, but I believe they can both be safely called religion.
Charles Caplan
ReplyDeleteReading a text like Genesis as literature is simultaneously very simple and very difficult. Every religion and culture has a creation story and tales of ancestors that serve as guidelines for the values and morals that the members of these groups should obey. If this were a translation of a Native American or African account of how the Earth was created and how man came to live on the Earth it would be extremely simple to read the text and think about aspects of the author’s life and the society in which he lived. This examination would also be insight into the important social norms that related the group that the author of the story belonged to and what purpose in society the story served. This can be done with Genesis as well, it is easy to read the story and think about the tales of ancient people who lived in a foreign land. The Old Testament is a collection of stories from an ancient tribe of people, which tell stories of both the struggle to survive and success in life, attributing parts of human life to an all-knowing higher power is extremely common in all civilizations and cultures. The difficulty with the critical interpretation of this specific text comes when you consider that Genesis along with the rest of the Old Testament is often said to be part of the foundation of this country and a vital part of the lives of many of its citizens. Stories like Adam and Eve, Noah and the Ark, the testing of Abraham, as well as the countless other tales that are part of the Old Testament are often invoked in the political and social realms of America.
This brings up the issue of how to read the actual text of the Old Testament and what information can be gathered from it. Could it be read and analyzed the way that a work by Shakespeare or Homer would be viewed. For some individuals it would be simple to read the stories and think about them in a literary sense, where plot elements and the actions of the characters in these tales represent a message that is being conveyed. This is an aspect of every story that has been written, they are a series of events that involve characters and teach a lesson, this is no different from a fantasy novel. Alternatively, many people believe that the Old Testament is a factual account of the word of GOD and his work on the Earth. It could be argued that the importance and sacrilege that is placed on the stories that the Bible contains have a tremendous amount of influence due to the fact that they are the subject of weekly sermons and lessons told to Jews, Christians and Muslims. The text is not as important as the interpretation by religious organizations and their members. Viewing the actual stories of the Old Testament critically and examining their effects on society, as well as the textual meaning of these widespread tales, requires readers to suspend preconceived ideas or beliefs when examining these texts.
Blog 2
ReplyDeleteJessica Wilner
I was raised as a Christian. I went to religion classes, got my communion and my confirmation. However, I never really felt like a true Christian. I was never able to believe the stories I read and was told the way that my family and friends could, without seeing proof. Believing, without seeing any evidence, has always been a difficult thing for me to do.
Genesis speaks of the origins of this world. This includes the creation of Earth, life, and man. The birth of man’s knowledge, as well as his understanding of how the world is going to work, all came from the original “sin”. This sin was simply disobeying God, who seemed to be man just like those who disobeyed him, yet he had all the power. He immediately banished those who disobeyed him, and cursed them and their descendants for all eternity.
In my opinion, this seems very drastic. The Bible seems to claim that God forgives all sins, so long as we are remorseful. As opposed to showing forgiveness and compassion, God banishes his creations, his first children. That just seems hard to believe, at least for me. The story of Adam and Eve is just a small part of the whole picture that I have trouble seeing. A huge addition to this concept is the story of Noah and the flood. Why would God, the one who forgives, destroy everything and everyone simply because they aren’t what he wants them to be? The Bible claims that God willingly murdered millions of creatures, human and not, just because he didn’t like them. This does not seem realistic at all, and it definitely is not forgiving and accepting, as God is supposed to be.
In class, we discussed the different ways to approach reading the Bible, and how we can read it critically. In order to critically read the Bible, it needs to be approached with an unbiased, unspoiled mind. Having a belief, whether it is the Bible being true or not, makes it very difficult to read the Bible critically. Being as I have trouble accepting the Bible as true, and in fact see it as a very interesting work of fiction (with plenty of good lessons, of course, but fiction none-the-less), I know that reading this work of literature in the way this class requires is going to be very hard to do.
Female Treatment in Genesis
ReplyDeleteOverall god's actions towards women are generally spiteful. He treats the children of men in this way as well by cursing them for their father's wrongs as in Noah's grandchild's case in chapter nine. This case of treating the child of the man badly can be extended as treating the mother badly because the child is an extension of the female mother. There are other oddities most easily seen with the treatment of Sarai in Egypt within chapter 12. Sarai becomes the lover of the Pharaoh while remaining married to Abraham. This is awkward considering Abraham allowed it and received no punishment and neither did Sarai, but the Pharaoh and his entire kingdom was cursed for a period. This makes no sense to me, but the easiest way I can translate this today is that god was upset with the Pharaoh for using another man's property.
In chapter 18, when Sarah laughs at what god says about making her pregnant, he is written as if he is irritated by her disbelief, but in chapter 17 when Abraham laughed about becoming a father at one hundred years old, god didn't do anything to him. He makes Sarah go through the painful act of childbirth which he cursed upon the female gender in chapter three. These weirdly unequal actions continue with Hagar being tossed aside by Sarah and god reassuring Abraham that sending the mother of his first born son and his son away to almost death is perfectly fine and everything will still work out in god's master plan. The easiest explanation for god's actions in the old testament is the easiest answer ever. This was written by men to help explain why life was hard and why males deserved to be in power. It feels sexist to read this collection of stories today, but it worked for the humans that were seeking answers about the life they lead.
Kelly Gilbert
ReplyDeleteHUMN 220
Professor B. Akmen
1/29/13
Genesis
I actually found this reading to be quite interesting. Although I’ve only read the bible when I was a small child, by my mother, and small excerpts from attending church, I learned a lot and found many things very intriguing. The part I enjoyed reading the most was the very beginning of Genesis when it explained how God created the heaven and earth and all living things, how he created light and dark first and how he created man from his own image. I was a little unsure of that, however. Did God really create the first man to look just like him? What did this first human being look like? Over time, different depictions have been made of what God looked like but over several years, these depictions might have muddled what the original God looked like. I also wonder how much of this information is valid because it’s all been written by so many people and so many different times over the years, as we discussed in class. I’ve never really thought this in depth about the bible, which is probably because I’ve never read it with an open mind. I’ve never tried to make sense of it.
Something that was quite interesting to me was how the first woman was created. It’s crazy to think a person can be created from the rib of a male. Reading this made me a bit skeptical, but I’m open to the possibilities and if so many of these bibles were written by all these different people, it’s got to be true, unless all the people writing bibles have no idea and are just guessing what they think might’ve happened. It all seems so weird when you think about it though. The notion that a serpent told Adam and Eve not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge just baffles me. I do find it interesting reading, however, almost like a novel with genres of drama and action and science fiction. I do consider the bible a kind of literature because in my opinion, it is a bunch of stories, those stories may or may not be true but there’s love and death and drama just like in an actual novel so I do think of it as a piece of literature.
I was quite intrigued reading until I got to around the 5th chapter of Genesis explaining Adam’s line. It became pretty boring and too complicated, almost like a bunch of names were just being listed and I didn’t know who they were or how they related to Adam and Eve and that time period.
I realize that some people find the bible interesting and would prefer to read that over going to a sermon with an actual preacher, but for me, I personally feel that watching a preacher speak in a big open room is more interesting and I can much easily stay focused. When I’m reading from the book, it’s sometimes hard to focus and understand what I’m reading because it’s much less detailed and I have to read it myself rather than have a preacher yelling it to me.
Mark Sledziewski
ReplyDeleteThere are several things to be said about the Bible if you read it critically. First of all is the comparison of what the bible actually says, and what people think it says. Growing up, I was raised Catholic, and went to church, and Sunday school, the whole nine yards. There are many things that I feel like I learned purely because my church leaders believed it. The forbidden fruit was most defiantly an apple. The snake was most defiantly Satan (or something of the like). And Eve was the first female created by God. But going back, and actually reading this, I find no mention of an apple, or even of Satan. They aren’t introduced at all in the Bible. I find this interesting that things that I grew up thinking are in the bible, aren’t actually there. And without critically reading it, I highly doubt I would’ve picked up on these facts.
Throughout all of my life, I’ve always heard how merciful and forgiving God was, and how he loved everything. But the Old Testament God is quite the opposite. So far, just in Genesis he’s wiped out the entire world, and smote two cities. And in the name of God, Abraham led an army, and gained many slaves, because of his devotion to God. It was interesting to me to see the difference in what my Sunday school taught me, and what I’m seeing on my own, so many years later.
There is much choosing when it comes to the Bible. The pope chooses what books go in, and what stay out for a lot of the part. But it is interesting to see how certain ideas don’t fit the Christian ways. When I was looking around a year or so ago, I came across the name Lilith. Apparently, Lilith was the very first woman, even before Eve. But, she was made from the same dust as Adam, and there for thought she was equal to him. She ran away from Adam, because she did not want to be submissive to him, and allow him to know her. She was then known as a demon, and was forgotten, and God made Eve, to be submissive for Adam. This reflects the underlying masculinity in the Bible, which was very much ingrained in our society, and still is to an extent.
Decoupling Genesis from It's Cultural Baggage pt. 1
ReplyDelete1. Why do the characters God favors seem like bad people?
Although a myriad of names and family lines can be found in the first 26 chapters of Genesis, the text focuses on a specific, notable few to whom God seems to give favor and with whom he communicates. These men include Noah, Abraham and Lot. However, the actions of these three characters specifically do not paint them in a favorable light. Noah and his family are the only human beings on Earth allowed to survive the great flood in Genesis 6 and 7, because Noah was "a righteous man, blameless in his generation" (Genesis 6:9). Yet in Genesis 9, Noah gets drunk and proceeds to get naked, and when his son Ham sees him naked, he doesn't just curse Ham, he curses Ham's son Canaan and condemns him to slavery and all his descendants to slavery (9:25), which seems like a shockingly cruel punishment for such a minor infraction. Abraham, the man to whom God says "I will make of you a great nation" (12:2), is a slave owner, which is considered a pretty odious thing to be in contemporary society. Lot, a man singled out by God as being the only man worthy of surviving the destruction of Sodom and Gomor'rah in Genesis 19, offers to allow an angry mob of Sodomites to rape his two daughters in place of two strangers (19:8), which seems like a bizarrely callous thing to do by modern standards. So why does God favor these people with such horrible, ugly character traits? The answer to me seems to be that these characters' actions only seem so hideous to me because of my post enlightenment values and ideals. The idea of slavery being morally acceptable is a hard pill to swallow today, but slavery, based on how casually Abraham's slave ownership is addressed in Genesis, was pretty widely accepted in the time period in which that story was written. Similarly, doing such things to one's family as offering to let strangers rape them and cursing their entire family line because they accidentally saw one naked seems bizarre and unnecessarily cruel, but since Lot and Noah are both treated by the text as if they are righteous in their actions, I believe these actions would have been more culturally acceptible when Genesis was being composed by its various authors. In order to understand why God favors apparently rancid people in Genesis, we must understand that our perspective is inherently tainted by the culture in which we live.
Decoupling Genesis From Its Cultural Baggage pt. 2
ReplyDelete2. What's up with that part about the Nephilim in Genesis 6?
From Genesis 6:1 to 6:4, there is a particularly baffling and cryptic passage about...well, it's not entirely clear when read within the vacuum of Genesis, without any outside context. Genesis 6:4 mentions that "the sons of God came in to the daughters of men" and that "the Nephilim were on the earth in those days" (Nephilim being another word for giants), but these events are never referenced ever again in Genesis and never elaborated upon, so what do they mean and what is the point of their inclusion? The answer lies in an apocryphal text: The Book of Enoch. The Book of Enoch gives an expanded recounting of the events of Genesis 6:1 to 6:4, explaining that some of the sons of God (Angels) became tempted by human women and had sex with them, which produced giant, destructive Nephilim offspring. Without this information, though, the story fragment in Genesis 6 has no real meaning or purpose, which indicates to me either that 6:1 to 6:4 are a reference to the Book of Enoch, or the Book of Enoch was meant as a supplement to an incomplete text. Either way, this supports a theory of the Bible having multiple authors. I happened to be aware of the Book of Enoch and its contents while reading 6:4 to 6:5. Even though the contents of the Book of Enoch might not be common cultural knowledge, it is outside baggage I brought to my reading of Genesis and it would have been very easy for me to assume that 6:4 to 6:9 make sense in this context by assuming the Book of Enoch to be a part of the same text, but what it is important to realize is that even though the Book of Enoch is a related text, it was not chosen as a part of the Biblical continuity, and for all intents and purposes it's events never happened in the exclusive context of Genesis. In leaving my outside suppositions about the Genesis story behind, the reality of the multiple authorship of the Bible was more distinctly defined.