Here goes. So far, I have been reading the bible passages, then looking at “The Good Book” for Plotz’s notes on concurrent sections. This provides motivation to finish chapters, as I have some humor to look forward to once I do. We will see how long this works for me. Also, more notes on class discussions in the next blog, but for now its all me.
“And God saw that it was good.” Wow. Well put Bible. I wonder if things really can be this easy. And if God saw it as good, shouldn’t we? I am on the fence…This whole giving dominion over everything to men, and not giving rain until there was man to plow the fields sounds so offensive to me. Call me hippie, but I have been thinking lately that life on this planet is not here because of us, we are here as a result of it—being able to digest it, hear it, see it, marvel at its beauty. We are, though debatable, somewhat relatively adapted to being here, and that is not because we were set here, but because we were created from this world around us. This is, of course, speculation. And from a heliocentric world view, I cannot expect the bible to even perceive of life not always existing as it had. I don’t know the truth, but I feel people might live with a lot more respect if they weren’t told that the world was created for them as their dominion.
….But then again, maybe they wouldn’t.
“It is a story of paradise and why we are no longer in it.” Somber words for explaining the beginning of the world in the (J) story bible. On this, I am really much less (I’m sure soon to be more) confused about the whole dual story parts of the bible. It is really neat to see both translations and edition, each giving story and backround gives a very full picture that is pleasing to be a part of. This is such an intricate layered work of art that it is hard to believe even the editors and compilers intended for it to be read literally. But I wouldn’t say the contradictions and repetitions lessen the value or beauty of the bible; rather they serve to illustrate how many people related with Christianity in different ways. That is beautiful in itself. This is sort of explained in The Genesis of Genesis: “The editors were not embarrassed by the duplications of particular episodes…..but, rather, valued te preservation of different traditions.”
Good Book’s author Plotz suggests something I can agree with when he writes “You can call this ‘original sin,’ but maybe it’s just lax parenting.” He writes this in reference to God’s not following through in killing Adam and Eve when they eat the apple, thus not being a strict guardian and encouraging more strife. I feel this makes sense, and suggests (as the Bible does as well) that God is not as all knowing, or perhaps perfect as the bible writes. Perhaps the bible was written in our childhood, revering the father as all youngsters do their parents, believing he can do no wrong. As humanity progresses, we become more familiar with our spiritual father and see the wrongs he could have righted, the ways in which we can learn from him, rather than be taught by him. Make sense?
Ahhh Cain and Abel. What to say, to this day I struggle with this story, praising it only for it’s inspiring Steinbeck’s East of Eden, one of my favorite books. But the story itself is beyond my comprehension, it just confuses and irritates me. Poor Cain, poor Abel. Poor us.
“Man seems to have been made mortal, but will henceforth be conscience of his mortality.” SICK JOKE! What a pain….
Flood time, AHA. “He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground…” Is it irony? Prediction of things to come? That makes the rest of the world pay for our inherent evilness, back on the dominion idea. Let’s play around and mess around. Fuck things up? And when God feels bad, he makes a covenant, the first covenant. A bald-faced religious explanation for a natural phenomenon. I could see this story in any Greek legend…
Little Greek Boy: Father, what is that colored bow in the sky?
Big Greek Man: Well, our gods once became mad at us because too many little boys didn’t go to bed when they were asked. Thus, they created a storm to raise the waters of the oceans, drowning all of creation except for two (or seven) of every animal. Afterwards, the gods realized they couldn’t be so harsh, and to promise that after every rain there would be no more flood, they created the rainbow. Now go to bed.
So, why does this blow my mind? Of course this is what much of religious texts are, explaining of phenomenon. But for some reason I thought, in my Western World View, that the bible was a tiny bit more sophisticated than that. I think I like it more knowing that it’s not.
After the first covenant, comes the second. This one was made with Abram…to be father of multitudes, leader of Hebrews……all you have to do is cut your penis!
J version: “And he said, Oh yes, you did laugh.” Wow. Comedic relief. The two versions are interesting though, in how they differ like retelling an old family story, but the one part remains the same. In both versions Abraham or Sarah laugh that they will have children in their old age. Humor is universal?
Judgement on Sodom:
“Let me speak just once more” the narrowing down from fifty to ten innocent men. This is a great part, somehow beautiful I can’t put my finger on it. Maybe the courage with which Abraham confronts his Lord, or how the Lord hears him and considers. Slightly comical, almost as if the Lord is expecting it, or wishing for it. Again like a child/father relationship---going hunting, The Road, ect. Needing reassurance (both parties) and then “returning to his place”
All in all, a very inspiring first look at the bible.
Ethnographic means what?
Story of Babel interesting.
Ishmael—crazy---arab
No comments:
Post a Comment