Be careful when you feel confident in your knowledge of God: '...But Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures, or the power of God..." (Matthew 22:29)'

Welcome to The Red Cell!

If this is your first visit here, please take a moment to peruse the posts and comments. Try to see things from the vantage point of someone who does not know God.

The "Red Cell Thoughts" are not to be taken as a position of this blog- they are meant to stir thought. Please feel free to post other thoughts, questions, and possible answers. All posts are anonymous, but feel free to provide your name if you so desire. The Red Cell facilitators reserve the right to edit comments that are rude or offensive. Having said that, a little bit of offensiveness may be allowed- because if we offend no-one, then we might not be working hard enough! Remember, the Christian religion was founded on questioning the prevailing wisdom of the day and the Protestant Reformation continued that tradition. Don't be afraid to question all your assumptions.

Showing posts with label Hebrew. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hebrew. Show all posts

Sunday, October 2, 2011

A "Design" look at the Bible

My SS class has taken on a critical reading of the Bible in order to explore possible "Big Ideas" and read the Bible with those potential Big Ideas as context (with the idea that reading it without that context could be a very different experience).

As part of our exploration we have delved into Genesis. While researching, I found an interesting piece on how traditional Jewish scholars approached Genesis:

Traditional Jewish scholarship has viewed the creation account in Genesis as expressing spiritual concepts. The Mishnah in Tractate Chagigah states that the actual meaning of the creation account, mystical in nature and hinted at in the text of Genesis, was to be taught only to advanced students one-on-one. Tractate Sanhedrin states that Genesis describes all mankind as being descended from a single individual in order to teach certain lessons.

Among these are:

- Taking one life is tantamount to destroying the entire world, and saving one life is tantamount to saving the entire world.

- A person should not say to another that he comes from better stock because we all come from the same ancestor.

- To teach the greatness of God, for when human beings create a mold everything that comes out of that mold is identical, while mankind, which comes out of a single mold, is different in that every person is unique.

I also stumbled onto another interesting piece about interpreting Hebrew (I pasted his conclusion up-front):

It must be remembered that modern western thinkers view events in step logic. This is the idea that each event comes after the previous forming a series of events in a linear timeline. But, the Hebrews did not think in step logic but in block logic. This is the grouping together of similar ideas together and not in chronological order. Most people read Genesis chapter one from a step logic perspective or chronological, rather than from the block logic so prevalent in Hebrew poetry.
 
The Poetry of Genesis Chapter One, Jeff A. Benner
 
When we read Genesis chapter one we usually see only one story there, but there are actually many stories. Why don't we see these multiple stories? Because we read the Hebrew Bible from a Modern Western thinkers point of view and not from an Ancient Eastern thinkers such as the Hebrews who wrote it. The Hebrews style of writing is prolific with a style of poetry unfamiliar to most readers of the Bible. This poetry is nothing like the poetry we are used to reading today and therefore it is invisible to us.
 
The most common form of Hebrew poetry is called parallelism. Parallelism is when the writer says one thing in two or more different ways. The Psalms and Proverbs are filled with these such as the examples below.

Psalms 119:105 - "Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path." The first part of this verse is paralleled with the second part. This verse is not saying two different things, rather, one thing in two different ways.

Proverbs 3:1 - "My son, do not forget my teaching, and keep my commands in your heart." Again the first part is paralleled with the second part.

Genesis 4:23 - Lamech said to his wives, "Adah and Zillah, listen to me; wives of Lamech, hear my words. I have killed a man for wounding me and a young man for injuring me."

Let's break down what Lamech says; [Adah and Zillah, listen to me] = [wives of Lamech, hear my words] then he says; I have killed [a man for wounding me] = [a young man for injuring me]. Lamech did not wound one and injure another, but killed one person and says it two different ways.

Often we overlook what the Bible is telling us because we are not recognizing what the poetry of a passage is attempting to convey. For example look at Psalms 40:8; "I desire to do your will, O my God; your Torah is within my heart" Here we see that doing the will of God is the same thing as having the Torah within your heart.

Now let us look at the Creation story Parallels of Genesis chapter one.

Creation Story Number 1

The first story is found in Genesis 1.1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." The Hebrew word "bara" is a verb and is usually translated as "create". To really understand what this word means let us look at another passage where this word is used.

1 Samuel 2.29 - Why do you scorn my sacrifice and offering that I prescribed for my dwelling? Why do you honor your sons more than me by fattening yourselves on the choice parts of every offering made by my people Israel?' The word "fattening" in the passage above is the Hebrew word "bara". The noun form of this verb is "beriya" and can be found in Genesis 41.4 - "And the cows that were ugly and gaunt ate up the seven sleek, fat cows." The word "fat" is the Hebrew word "beriya".

The word "bara" does not mean, "create" (Hebrew actually has no word that means "create" in the sense of something out of nothing) but "to fatten". If we take the literal definition of "bara" in Genesis 1.1 we have - In the beginning God fattened the heavens and the earth. What does this fattening of the heavens and earth mean? This verse is not showing the creation of the heaven and earth, but rather the fattening or filling up of it. Therefore, Genesis 1.1 is a condensed version of the whole creation story.

Creation Story Number 2

The second creation story paralleling Genesis 1.1 is Genesis 1.2 - "and the earth was unfilled and empty and darkness was over the face of the deep, and the Wind of God was hovering over the waters." In this passage we see that the earth was formless and empty before it was filled up, then the Wind of God hovers over the waters of the earth. This hovering would be the action of the Wind of god filling up the earth.

The use of the word "and" at the beginning of this verse may cause some confusion due to an understanding of how this word is used in Hebrew. In English the word "and" in between verses one and two means that what happens in verse two occurs after what happens in verse one. In Hebrew, the word "and" is used in standard Hebrew poetry to link two statements as one. In other words, verse one is the same thing as verse two.

Creation Story Number 3

The third story is found in Genesis 1.3-5. "And God said, 'Let there be light', and there was light and God saw that the light was good and he separated the light from the darkness and God called the light 'day', and the darkness he called 'night' and there was evening, and there was morning, the first day".

Hebrew, like English, has a word for one and a different word for first. The same is true for the words two and second, three and third, etc. As an example the Hebrew word for "three" is "shelosh", and the Hebrew word for "third" is "sheliyshiy". Days 2 - 7 use the Hebrew word for second, third, fourth, etc. We would assume that the "first" day would use the Hebrew word "reshon" meaning "first" in order to be consistent with the other six days, but instead we have the word "echad" meaning "one" or " in unity". The author is making a parallel with the "first" day and with all the days of creation. I believe this is because all seven days of the fattening of the earth are being united in this verse. The first day of creation is also a parallel with the whole of creation as the earth was in darkness and the act of filling the earth brought light to the earth.

Creation Story Number 4

The fourth creation story is found in Genesis 1.3-13. In these passages we have the first three days of creation. These are the days of separating. On the first day God separated light and darkness. On the second day God separated the waters above from the waters below forming the sky and the seas. On the third day God separated the land from the water forming dry land.

Creation Story Number 5

The fifth creation story is found in Genesis 1.14-31. In these passages we have the second set of three days of creation. On the fourth day God filled the light with the sun and the darkness with the moon and stars. On the fifth day God filled the sky with the birds and the sea with the fish. On the sixth day God filled the dry land with the animals and man. Notice the correlation between the first set of three days of separation with the second set of three days of filling.

Creation Story Number 6
The sixth story is the whole of Genesis chapter one. Though we have looked at five different stories of creation, they are all combined together to form one complete story of creation.
 
CONCLUSION
 
It must be remembered that modern western thinkers view events in step logic. This is the idea that each event comes after the previous forming a series of events in a linear timeline. But, the Hebrews did not think in step logic but in block logic. This is the grouping together of similar ideas together and not in chronological order. Most people read Genesis chapter one from a step logic perspective or chronological, rather than from the block logic so prevalent in Hebrew poetry.
 
 
I do think we may miss things when we read the Bible- how ancient Hebrews communicated, why they communicated, and who they were communicating with. We take things out of context possibly and discount the manner in which different peoples communicate. Can we understand God without any knowledge of ancient Hebrew- the language, the people, and how and why they communicated? Is it disingenuous to take the Bible literally- especially through an English translation?

Sunday, June 21, 2009

Are our souls separate from our bodies?

If you google the title you get a plethora of sites and ideas. One of the ideas that seems to pop up directly questions what the Bible says: "...A soul is an idea created by man to comfort his fear of his impermanence..."

If you google the words "Bible" and "soul" you'll see this website: http://www.learnbible.net/soul.html. In it you see many Biblical references to these ideas:

- "God hides the truth from all but a few" basically saying that it is hard for the "common scholar" to divine Divine Truth from reading the Bible (so, who is a "common scholar"?)
- "That Greek thought and St. Augustine came up with the doctrinal views of "the soul"- and not anything directly out of the Bible
- "..."Among the ancient Hebrews 'soul' was the equivalent of the principle of life as embodied in living creatures, and this meaning is continued throughout the Bible ..."
- "...In the Old Testament Hebrew, the original word for soul is nephesh. In the New Testament Greek it is psuche. Both mean the same thing and are used Interchangeably. One is used to translate the other..."
- "...It is quite obvious at the outset that a word of such broad application, including all the animal kingdom, all its bodily [and] physical aspects, CANNOT POSSIBLY indicate some immortal essence in man distinguishing him from the lower creation..."

I'd encourage anyone interested to peruse the rest of that website- some interesting thoughts. I personally plan to spend some time today looking up the thoughts on the "soul" in the Bible- but as the above-mentioned website notes- is the Greek and English translations so corrupted as to make finding the meaning of one word problematic? I guess it depends on what our thoughts are on the source of the Bible and subsequent translations.

Bottom line, though- is: is our soul separate from our bodies, or is it a manifestation of our bodies (or is that a false dichotomy- and the "truth" somewhere in between?)?

On the one hand I feel very lucky to have been born into the U.S. and as a product of loving and educated parents. That my soul "landed" in that vessel seems to me to be a jackpot kind of "win". Surely I need to do a lot to justify that gift.

On the other hand, what if my soul could not have existed in any other body? What if it is the end result of every person along my lineage up to this point? What if my soul actually emerges from my body and is not separate? This possibility makes the whole "afterlife" idea a little murky- what happens to my soul if it is a result of my body- and my body is decomposing in the ground? Likewise, if my soul is entirely separate- wouldn't that be akin to the idea of multiple lives?

Sunday, May 31, 2009

The meaning of "Yom": How do we set church doctrine?

I read recently that the Hebrew word used in Genesis to describe the Creation story ("Yom") could have three different meanings. One is a 12 hour period. Another is 24 periods of something (24 seasons, 24 days, 24 years, etc. The last possible meaning is "a time period". This could mean a season, a year, a millennium, etc.

I'm no language expert- and surely don't know Hebrew (so I might be entirely wrong), but if this is true then a literal translation of the Creation story may be problematic. Do we really know what the "literal" translation is?

One theory I've heard to solve this "problem" is that the King James Version was inspired by the Holy Spirit in such a way as to be a translation we can count on being literally God's words.

In going to the website http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_world1.htm, I saw these interesting theories on the Genesis account of Creation:

1- It happened exactly as the Bible- in its current English translations- says it did (God created the world in 6, 24-hour periods)
2- God created the world in 6 days, but the days were not contiguous- there were long periods of time in between each day.
3- God's "days" are a thousand days to a human "day"- therefore it happened over 6,000 days.
4- God's "days" are "like" a thousand days- so they could be any time period- to us they are long, to God they are "only" a day.
5- The Creation story is a metaphor- not meant to actually describe what happened, but to give humans a model from which to follow in as far as work, worship, and rest.
6- Each day represented millions of years
7- God did create the universe in 6 days, but it happened a long time ago (unknowable).
8- The author of Genesis used a narrative device to describe the Creation in "acts"- instead of "Act I", he used "Day 1". In other words, it is impossible to know how long "Act I", etc. was.
9- God described the Creation to Moses and took 6 days to describe it. Moses described the illustration.
10- God commanded Creation to take place over 6 days, and then it took a much longer period to take place
11- depending on your "time perspective" (since time is relative), from God's perspective (outside looking in?) the days were short. From our perspective (inside?) it would have been billions of years- but even that is problematic- since "we" weren't around billions of years ago. (this theory somehow agrees very closely with Big Bang Theory calculations for the age of the Universe)
12- and, my "favorite" : "...Replicated earth theory: Mike Schuler has developed a novel theory of origins, and has begun a web site to explain this and other scientific puzzles. He believes that God created an original earth. He spent billions of years trying every possible genetic code, to see what types of life would result. Most of the species were useless. God created a mass extinction event whenever the world filled up with such unneeded species. At the end of this great experiment, he was ready to create humans in the image of God. So he created an exact copy of that original earth in perfect detail, down to the atomic level. This took him only six days, as Genesis states. Schuler draws the analogy of the creation of a music CD. It might take months to create a new CD, but a copy can be created in seconds..."

I, personally, have one question for all of the theories which hold that it had to have happened (any part that God took direct part in) in a certain time period. For an omnipotent God, why would it not have happened instantaneously? It would seem to me to be more believable that it really was a metaphor to show us how to live, and that in reality it happened in a way most likely only known to God.

The science fiction lover in me, however, likes the "time perspective" theory. Time being relative is very hard for the layman to understand (me being one of them). At the start of the Big Bang (if the theory is right), time, space, and matter were compressed in ways beyond our understanding. To explain how it really happened, one would have to know from what perspective it was being described. Since humans weren't around according to the Bible- it would only follow it wasn't from our perspective.

In the end, however- it should only matter how it happened if it effects the central tenets of our faith. Does it?

Sunday, February 8, 2009

FEB “Thought of the month”:

The Bible was written in Hebrew- a language with some 1300 words (at the time), that, when translated into other languages- like the 4 million-word English language of today- loses much of its original meaning. To take it literally is to not only ignore the problems associated with translation, but to also miss God’s intent: which was only to provide us with a spiritual guide explaining our relationship with Him. To use it as a scientific textbook or even historical work is taking it out of context. God gave us our own faculties in order to figure out the mechanics of the Universe, how the Earth got here, how we got here, and even what happened back in 2,000 B.C. You might even apply that to some of the stories of Jesus- was it really THAT important to believe that He walked on water- or more important to get the meaning of the story? Jesus talked in parables all the time, why couldn’t the disciples and apostles and other writers of the Gospels have done the same?

Questions for further thought:

- Assuming God is omnipotent (all-powerful), is it possible that He created the world both as current science theorizes it to have happened (over billions of years), AND in a way that would match what is described in scripture (original Hebrew with all its possible meanings)? If God can exist in a Trinity that is so mysterious and confusing as to seem paradoxical to humans, why couldn’t the Creation story be much more complex than the way it SEEMS to be described in Genesis?

- How literal should we take parts of the Bible- since the Hebrew of the time supposedly had only a few thousand words compared to our millions in modern English? Are principles that Jesus taught the more important parts, or does it take away from anything if we don't accept it all as precise facts?- What of the concept that the Bible was inspired by God to be an explanation of His relationship with us- and not as a Historical or Scientific Textbook? If possible- then it would follow that to use it in any manner other than as an explanation of our relationship with Him would be problematic- sort of like using a cookbook to understand lava flows. Or is it a "be-all, end-all" answer to everything and science is attempting the impossible and will always or usually be wrong?

- Do Christians "limit" God by trying to "box" Him into what it says in a literal interpretation of the Bible? Would it be more realistic to assume we cannot know the details of how He operates- to include the universe and the Earth- at least through only the Bible? Would it not make more sense to postulate that He provided the Bible as a spiritual guide, but gave us the tools to discover the answers to the rest of His creation on our own (or at least PART of the answers)? Or, at the least, should Christians couch everything we say in terms that recognize we might not understand God as much as we sound like we do? Or, alternatively, is the Bible all we need and everything else an illusion of our own pride? Can we not even trust our own senses and reason?