English 211: Biblical and Classical Literature

Where did the church soften the Gospel?

2006-12-06T17:26:00.000-08:00

The one question that always haunts me more than any is a simple one, but with a complex answer. Where did the church soften the Gospel? I really do wonder this. I don't believe it is the world's fault that Jesus has become so hated everywhere. Instead, I believe it is the church's fault for this. Somewhere along the line, they made it less than the grace of Christ mentioned in the Gospels that saves a man, according to the Christian faith.
For one, the church tried for so long to rid themselves of their Jewish roots. This was a very foolish act, because so much of the New testament is understood because of that Jewish culture. Finally, in this century, some brilliant teachers have started researching Jewish history and coming closer to solving all of the mysteries of the first century.
Secondly, the church started placing human demands on something more than merrit. They started placing a merrit of earning grace instead of just letting grace be...well, grace! This was especially seen by the Catholic church in the middle ages, as only the priests had knowledge of the scriptures. After this, many new denominations kept the tradition of earning salvation.
Thirdly, the Church couldn't keep as just one church, but now it is hundreds, even thousands of denominations. There are so many factions that it seems obvious why so many people aren't wanting the church. If the people who say they have the answers to life can't even get an answer together or understand how to agree, why would an outsider want this?
Finally, people forgot that Jesus demanded that we must give up our LIVES! We aren't doing a great job of this as a church because everyone is off doing their own thing and they are keeping all their possessions and hoarding the rest. I don't know any group in America that spends more money than the Christian community. "I got a new CD." "I bought this new book on theology." "Where should we eat?" "I want a Playstation 3." "My mom and dad got me a new car!" I hear this as much out of Christians, if not more, than out of those who don't believe in Jesus. I have to ask so many, do you love Jesus, or are you just trying to get out of hell free and live like hell while on Earth? Do you really WANT Jesus, or do you just want the reward for the punishment HE PAID!!! I am not mad at non-believers at all for any of this. It's not your fault, it's us! It's the Church's fault! My Jesus would never be accepted at my church because his dirty complexion and blood dripping from his hands, feet and head might make a mess! The academic system is not to blame for the lack of faith in Christ these days. It's the church to blame, because we aren't showing love to any of you non-believers and I apologize! I want to put the lyrics to a Todd Agnew song on my blog now. If you follow Christ's teachings, please read this and really question your following?

Which Jesus do you follow?
Which Jesus do you serve?
If Ephesians says to imitate Christ
Then why do you look so much like the world?

Cause my Jesus bled and died
He spent His time with thieves and liars
He loved the poor and accosted the arrogant
So which one do you want to be?

Blessed are the poor in spirit
Or do we pray to be blessed with the wealth of this land
Blessed are they that hunger and thirst for righteousness
Or do we ache for another taste of this world of shifting sand

Cuz my Jesus bled and died for my sins
He spent His time with thieves and sluts and liars
He loved the poor and accosted the rich
So which one do you want to be?

Who is this that you follow
This picture of the American dream
If Jesus was here would you walk right by on the other side or fall down and worship at His holy feet

Pretty blue eyes and curly brown hair and a clear complexion
Is how you see Him as He dies for Your sins
But the Word says He was battered and scarred
Or did you miss that part
Sometimes I doubt we'd recognize Him

Cause my Jesus bled and died
He spent His time with thieves and the least of these
He loved the poor and accosted the comfortable
So which one do you want to be?

Cause my Jesus would never be accepted in my church
The blood and dirt on His feet would stain the carpet
But He reaches for the hurting and despised the proud I think He'd prefer Beale St. to the stained glass crowd
And I know that He can hear me if I cry out loud

I want to be like my Jesus!
I want to be like my Jesus!

Not a posterchild for American prosperity, but like my Jesus
You see I'm tired of living for success and popularity
I want to be like my Jesus but I'm not sure what that means to be like You Jesus
Cause You said to live like You, love like You but then You died for me
Can I be like You Jesus?
I want to be like my Jesus

Who is Jesus?

2006-12-06T17:05:00.000-08:00

Who is Jesus? So many ask this question and there are about as many answers to this as there are people asking. Let's really disect who he is. Let's look at the history of the first century, the description of him and his actions.
Jesus lived in the first century A.D. and at a time with a large number of revolts. He led not a revolt, but a revolution in the way people see life. He challenged people to look at life as the most precious thing. He lived in a time when the Romans oppressed so many people and so many faiths. He lived at a time when the Jewish people were expecting a Messiah. Other leaders came before him around that time, but they did not have the same title as he did.
Jesus was a rabbi with authority, meaning he had the entire HEBREW BIBLE MEMORIZED! the man knew his stuff when it came to Jewish customs. Yet, he grew up in a town so poor, so destitute that Josephus doesn't even mention it as a town in the vicinity of Galilee in any of his documents. He was an average looking guy by the description that we get. He didn't have pretty blue eyes with curly blonde hair and a white skin. This is an aweful depiction of Jesus. The church has really messed up what Jesus probably looked like. Jesus truly did have the mastery of word over even the most zealous of Pharisees and Sadducees. He didn't act like the hypocrites of the Jewish religion though. He treated people like...PEOPLE.
Jesus was the cool guy who would hang out with the lowest of the lows. He spent his time with tax collectors and sluts and liars alike, without judging them. Was there any reason why people didn't want to follow a guy like this? He had the highest, most honorable title to the Jews and he spent his time with the least of them. Jesus showed love in the way the scirptures said to show it, not the way the religious leaders twisted it to say. His actions showed compassion on people who no one wanted to even touch. The equivelant of these people in today's culture would be people like meth addicts, the high school dropout at McDonald's with no friends, or that weird guy you see on the side of the street who has a sign asking for money, but doesn't have the dignity to look you in the eye after such a broken life.
Is there any reason the disciples taught out of such love? Jesus was a real man with a real story. He had a real family with real problems. He was a real teacher with real students. Decide what you want about him. If you believe he is the savior of man take the plunge, if not, no one is making you choose. If you think he was a looney, find the evidence. You ultimately decide who Jesus is and what he did, but remember that he was only one man with one real identity, so dig in and find it out. I'm not trying to prosletize, I'm only challenging you to look into this Jesus thing a lot deeper than what you have in class. I know so many people who make claims about Jesus, but they have never really read the bible, never really looked at the apologetics, never studied the history, or even really questioned their beliefs about it. Dig in before you give an "educated" answer.

Roots

2006-12-04T12:57:00.000-08:00

The bible would be much easier to understand if the church never tried to flee from their Jewish roots. There is so much in both the old and new testaments that has to do with Jewish culture. Nearly every piece of text in the Gospels made it in because it was so dimetric, so intense to the ways of the Jewish culture at that time. Now, thanks to people such as Rob Bell, Ray Vanderlaan, and many historical scholars, we have gained a large understanding of who Jesus was and what exactly he stood for.
Take the word Yoke for example. In the passage of inviting all the weary and burdened, Jesus tells the people to take his yoke. This did not mean that thing tied around an ox, as so many have mistaken, but instead, Jesus' teachings. A yoke, in that time, was the teaching of a rabbi. He was basically saying that Jesus invited the people into a less weary life with his teaching. I for one, agree, even though I face many challenges and hardships as a Christ follower, I can say that there are many things that do not weary or burden me. Sin, for one, going against God's will, is no longer a burden because I know I am forgiven. It is true that I still sin even though I don't want to, but I know that it is not unforgivable. Also, death does not burden me, because according to what the New Testament says, I will not truly die, but only go home. Jesus makes a lot more sense if we understand what the culture was like back then.

Come Follow Me

2006-12-04T12:42:00.000-08:00

Although this is not something I just learned as of this semester, I believe it is important to understand why the disciples would have so simply followed Jesus when he asked them. The reason for it is that in the time of Christ, the highest honor one could have would be following after a rabbi. This is where the phrase "in the dust of the rabbi" comes from. To be in the dust of the rabbi meant that a disciple would follow so close behind that they literally would pick up the dust that kicked off of the rabbi's sandals on their legs.
Around the first century A.D. and a few centuries before, the Jews placed their students in a special type of schooling where through the ages of about six to ten, they would work on memorizing the Torah. After that, if they were good enough, they would go onto more schooling, learning about the rest of the Hebrew Bible. at about the age of fifteen, if the student was good enough, they would follow after a rabbi. The rabbi would choose only the best students and he had the choice of telling them to stop following at any given moment. When asked to follow, the rabbi would simply say, "Come follow me."
We find most of the apostles working simple jobs, mostly with their fathers. This is because if a student was a washout, they would go onto their family trade. The age of the apostles would have been in the teens. Not only did Jesus ask these washouts to follow him, but he was a rabbi with "Shmeha," or authority. This meant he had the entire Hebrew bible memorized! A rabbi with authority asked the lowest of the lows to follow him. He asked total washouts to be his disciples. Is there any question why these youngsters would have followed now? Absolutely not. They followed because this was a second chance and with a rabbi with Shmeha! The only other rabbi with that title when Jesus walked the earth was John the Baptist. Interestingly enough, they were related. Now that's some good genes!
Basically, in our time, this would be like Bill Gates or Donald Trump saying, "Come, take the control of my business when I retire and gain all that I own and know." Most would never pass up on these oppurtunities.

Moses and the Torah

2006-12-03T11:46:00.000-08:00

It is obvious that Moses probably didn't write the Torah, but he did in fact bring it orally to his people. Oral story telling in the Jewish culture was very maticulous, which means that when literate Israelites wrote down the oral stories later, they would have been the same as they were at the time of Moses.
Along with this, the belief of who gave the Law to the peopel of Israel did not change around the time of Christ. It simply just carried on from what it was from earlier. I have to say that it is a challenge to what I know to say that Moses did not give the descendents of Abraham the Torah. I have many educated teachers who have spent many more hours researching such topics as the Torah, than any of my academic instructors ever have. One of my favorite people to learn from is a man by the name of Fred Nelson, from Billings who has 20,000 plus hours in the study of the Bible. I believe his opinion over even most professional opinions with that kind of resume. I have not heard all of his opinion on the Torah, but I meet with one of his prodoge quite often.
I have heard of so many debates with academic persons, but how about one of those academic people has debate with someone with an education like Fred. I seriously challenge anyone to ask some well thought out questions with pastors and well educated Christ followers before giving up on the New Testament because if one only argues with a secular instructor at MSU, you will no doubt get a biased opinion.

Saul/Paul's conversion

2006-12-03T11:31:00.000-08:00

One of the most interesting things about the man Saul, is his complete 180 degree change from a zealous Pharisee to a completely commited follower of Jesus Christ. First of all, we must understand that Paul was a very real man. The evidence for this would be historians, such as Josephus, who wrote in the first century. Secondly, his teacher, Gamaliel, and thirdly, his epistles to the churches.
Josephus was a first century Jewish historian whom we get much of our education about the New Testament from. He would have known of Saul's existence, seeing how he documented things such as the Sanhedrin and the members of it.
Gamaliel was the teacher who raised up Saul to the level of Pharisee. His only complaint about Saul was that he could never get enough reading material. This means that Saul was by far, one of the most educated men of his time. Gamaliel is also written about in the book of Acts, which means that he was a real man in the Sanhedrin. If Paul was so educated, why would such a man convert to a simple and humble life as an apostle of Christ? The answer is that he wouldn't without some supernatural event. Well, that seems to be answered in Acts chapter 9. It seems strange that such a zealous pharisee would convert, but he did and we know this is true because of his epistles.
Paul was obviously the true author of all of his epistles because we find the same style in all of them. He starts the episltes in the same way, starting with greetings and prayer to the churches. His ending is the same as well, and the wording is much the same in all of his writings. Having the understanding of his existence according to external and internal evidence brings up many questions about the faith of Christianity. I suggest that everyone in the class should really dig in and research many sources on the Bible.

Validity of Jesus' existence

2006-12-03T11:02:00.000-08:00

A few weeks ago, Professor Sexson said something about there being no evidence outside of the New Testament that Jesus ever existed. First of all, I would like to say that this is about the most foolish and uneducated claim I have ever heard. We must first of all understand that Prof. Sexson is an ENGLISH professor, not a history professor. I find this very contradictory to what he teaches throughout the class, saying that History isn't the important thing when studying the text in class, yet now he wants to say that there is no historical evidence of Jesus. Basically what I have to say is that this is FAITH LANGUAGE by our professor who asks us not to share faith language in class. It takes faith beyond anything to believe that there is no historical or physical evidence of Jesus outside of my New Testament. Basically, Sexson has opened up the door for me to share evidence of Christ and if it is considered faith language at all, then I really can't be punished for it because he used his own faith language when he said it was not to be shared in class. On the sylabus no less!
For one example of evidence, we have more historical documents of the New Testament and First Century Church than any other historical time period in History. We have over 24,000 documents on the subject of the New Testament! That's more than Greek mythology, Plato, Roman history, or any other historical documents! How can someone say that there is no evidence of Jesus ever existing after having this many documents?
Another evidence we have is the date of the earliest manuscripts. The entire New Testament was scribed between 60 and about 130 A.D. according to Josh McDowell, author of the book, More Than a Carpenter. This is important because it discounts any claims that the New Testament was re-edited orally again and again before being written. It also means that the people who followed Christ were the authors as the books have been named after them. This also excludes any chance of the Gnostic Gospels being included the New Testament as they were not written until after 200 A.D.
With over 24,000 documents and multiple New Testament manuscripts we also must include the argument of textual criticism. There may be multiple errors one old Greek copy of any of the Gospels, but the multiple documents actually correct eachother. Having this evidence we must also include the fact that the errors are only .5%. These are very small errors at that. The main message still comes across in every text, only small errors occur, such as misspelling. This, once again, excludes the Gnostic gospels because we have only one copy of most and they are missing large portions of the text.
Finally, I am definitely going to believe my pastor on the subject of the Bible over Prof. Sexson because he has a DEGREE in the studies of the bible where as Pror. Sexson has one in English. I am going to believe the one who knows the literary style and history of the bible first.
The evidence speaks for its self and this is but a tip in the Iceburg as far as the evidence of the New Testament.

The Poetic writings of the Bible

2006-11-15T23:04:00.001-08:00

I really wish we would have spent more time on the poetry and wisdom in the bible. I absolutely love Song of Solomon. I have never read a more beautiful and passionate writing in my life. I don't know how anyone else feels, but I think it is great to see such passion expressed in a relationship. I, being a Christ follower, love the book because it is so dimetric to the way the church acts today. Many pastors are afraid to discuss anything about sexual and erotic love between a man and a woman, but it is very much expressed in God's text.
I really get a little mad at the church for making something so embarassing to discuss in this country. I personally believe that the church is somehow ashamed of sex. Perhaps it is because of all the failed marriages in the church. There is nothing wrong with a wedded Christian couple to say that they have a great sex life.
I really am loving the poetry in the bible because it is not censored and it doesn't relent. The church has tried many times to censor or hide these things from the scripture by simply ignoring it, but that is a mistake and a terrible MISREADING of the bible! I am just trying to say that if its in the Bible, Christians shouldn't be so ashamed to talk about sex! And it is in poetry form to express how beautiful a physical relationship is. Enjoy the Bible, it is beautiful!

Suffering

2006-11-02T09:48:00.000-08:00

In the last class, professor Sexson explained how the book of Job doesn't really give an explanation for suffering. I think that's about the most accurate thing I've ever heard about suffering. I'm a believer in Christ, but I think there are so many who don't read the poetic writings in the Bible correctly. Pastors always try to tell how Job is the explanation to suffering, but that's not correct. Job never gets a direct answer about suffering in the entire trial. He simply is humiliated and humbled by God, and that is the answer for him.
I believe the reason suffering exists is because of passion. The best definition I have ever heard for passion is that it is loving something enough to suffer for it. If Job truly loves God he will gladly suffer for him. The same goes with any one else. I love having my hand raised at the end of a mixed martial arts match, which is nearly a no holds bar match. Does it feel good to get punched in the face? No, but I will go through it to win a match. I love my God as well, but I'm not going to just give in when the going gets a little tough and stop following him, I'm going to try and stick with it and know that eventually something good will happen. Jesus was passionate enough (know that I do believe he is the savior for mankind, I'm not trying to offend anyone, this comes from my beliefs) to suffer on the cross for me as well as everyone else on earth. I believe that passion is the reason for suffering. In a world against whatever one is passionate for, there will be suffering. The better word for it is opposition, or even better, commitment.

Job kind of moment

2006-11-02T09:38:00.000-08:00

Well, I had a real Job like moment last night. I was having a tough time surrendering everything to God as far as my mixed martial arts career goes. I have a fight this weekend and on the way home from training things started getting really bad. It wasn't anything major, just thoughts and misplacing stuff. One thing led to another and then I was desperately crying out to God the way Job did. I was asking what he was intending on doing with my life and I just got angry. I wondered why so many other people who follow Christ had so many wonderful things and how their lives were going so well and why some things from the past are still seeming to haunt me. I was pretty angry.
Later on that night at Campus Crusade for Christ, the speaker talked about God's love. That really knocked me back on my butt and I really gave the competition I have this weekend to God. I feel that I got an answer like Job. God didn't say why I wasn't being blessed with certain things the way others are, but he basically used the speaker last night to say to me, "Erick, look at all my love for you. I have given you life and a savior!" I didn't need any more of an answer after that. I think I understand Job a little bit more now. God seems to give answers that don't directly aswer, but for some reason it is more direct than the direct answer. I think Job understood what he was saying to him and it was the most efficient aswer for suffering.

Jacob's wrestling match

2006-10-19T10:45:00.000-07:00

Today I recieved a CD in the mail from Ravi Zacharias International Ministries. First of all, I need to admit that this man is quite brilliant, more so than most people on the planet. At one point he talked about Jacob and his wrestling with God. After listening to his message, I do believe very much that Jacob wrestles with God. The thought that he wrestled with just an angel is a very poor misreading because of how it ties into an earlier piece in the book of Genesis.
Earlier, we see Jacob stealing the blessing from his father by pretending to be Esau. Isaac is blind and cannot tell who it is, so he gives the blessing to Jacob, believing that it is Esau. He stole that which belonged to his brother! Jacob may have been viewed as a man who is following after God's will, but at this point he is doing what is immoral and sinful, which many don't look at when comparing it to the wrestling match.
Later, Jacob wrestles all night with God. The reason I can say it is God is because of what he says. When Jacob grabs onto him and won't let go until he gets a BLESSING, God says to him, "First, tell me your name." Many may think that this makes the heavenly figure an angel because he doesn't know the name of Jacob, but that is a terrible misreading. God knows who Jacob is. The reason an omniscient Lord asks for his name is to rebuke him and give him a blessing after confessing who he really is. I believe that Jacob realizes what God is asking and in humility he utters, "Jacob." I believe that he understands how displeased his God is with him and at the same time he is stating his name, he is confessing his sin and asking for forgiveness in such a humble manner. This truly answers who the heavenly figure is that we don't understand. Frye is correct when he says you cannot understand the bible without reading the whole thing. You cannot understand this passage without reading of Jacob's past and the shame he brought upon himself.

Reason for fall of Sodom

2006-10-18T23:15:00.000-07:00

About a week ago I started reading a book, titled, Revolution in World Missions. I do have to say that the book is very compelling. I have a new view on missionary work because of it, but that is irrelivant in this class. The reason this book comes up for a topic is because of what it mentions about the destruction of Sodom. It states how much like Sodom we are here in America. I didn't have the right answer while twiddling my thumbs in class, trying to come up with an answer.
The reason for Sodom's destruction is actually found in Ezekiel chapter 16! We often overlook these little pieces in scripture. It states, "Now this is the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy" (16:50 NIV). When I look closer at this it makes a lot more sense if I analyze it closely. Compared to our own culture, Sodom is nearly alike. We have the same sexual problems running rampant (as the bible would put them), as well as a lack of belief in a one, true God. We are the most well fed nation on the planet and we aren't very giving with that wealth. It makes so much sense how we have become just like Sodom.

This was just one of those side notes, but it was also an interesting factoid to learn that applies to class.

2006-09-28T22:52:00.000-07:00

I'm really enjoying this class lately. I like how we get in depth in the bible about certain subjects and talk about the taboo. It reminds me very much of many of the Bible studies I have attended, except with a little more secularism. I am enjoying looking into these parts of the bible and getting something new out of them everytime.
With that settled, I think I would like to blog about Jacob wrestling with whatever he wrestled with. It's interesting that different translations interpret exactly what and whom he wrestled with differenly. The interpretation in The NRSV is an angel, whereas in the NLT it is God. I agree with Professor Sexson to a point that we should just let the being be an enigma, but then again I think there is an answer somewhere. In the NLT it does not say that the man struck Jacob on the hip, but that he simply touched his hip. If that is the case, I can rest assured that the man was God and he was going pretty easy on Jacob.
Maybe there is something deeper here. Maybe this is another misreading as Bloom would put it. I believe there is some deeper meaning to the story than just wrestling. If anyone has wrestled, as I did in High School, they would know that six minutes is almost unbearable. Jacob wrestled all night long! I believe that is why the being says that he has triumphed. I absolutely love when Jacob will not let go of the man without an answer. It makes me feel that what we are missing these days is to hold on to what we believe with all our might. Perhaps we need to hold on even when it feels uncomfortable; when it feels like we are possibly becoming annoying. We are missing that perseverence these days.

Mercy upon those he so chooses

2006-09-24T23:15:00.000-07:00

I haven't had a chance to add in an entry this weekend. I was over at a Lock in that my youth group was holding. I loved it. We had around 40 junior high students at the event and it absolutely rocked.
On thursday, many people, including Professor Sexson were asking why God punishes Sodom and Gemorah, but not certain biblical characters for commiting incest. I have answers for that. First of all, incest was not considered unlawful until the law was established by Moses. Secondly, if we are going to look at the bible as a peice of literature, I believe we have to understand that theology is important and has a purpose in this class.
I believe the apostle, Paul, had a better answer in Romans chapter nine than any of us do, seeing how he was a pharisee before he surrendered his life to Jesus Christ (On a side not, Paul was a real man, we know that because of a certain first century historian by the name of Josephus). "Are we saying then that God is unfair? Of course not! For God said to Moses 'I will show mercy to anyone I choose, and I will show compassion to anyone I choose.' So it is God who decides to show mercy. We can neither choose it nor work for it" (Romans 9:14-16 NLT). If we are looking at it even from this academic standpoint, who are you to say who gets mercy and who doesn't? In the text God is all powerful and man is not.
I just wonder why, if so many don't believe that the bible is true, they have to continually attack my God. No other religeon, if you call it that (I consider it a relationship with God), is attacked as much as Christianity. I believe that means there is both conviction and fear that it may be true then. Chew on that for a while. Really, think about that.

God inspired writings

2006-09-20T23:06:00.000-07:00

I'm a little lazy. I just started reading The Book of J the other day. As I read on in the book I remember Bloom stating that he believes that all writing is God inspired. If that is the case than that means that there is no absolute with writing. In a sense it is the same as saying that there is no sense of morality. After listening to the profound Ravi Zecharias, apologist and philosopher, this is quite absurd. I cannot believe that someone can truly believe that something is not absolute. There are absolutes to everything in life otherwise there are no absolutes.
Is it to say that any writings that are anti God can be truly God inspired? Why would God be against himself? He simply wouldn't. I am not trying to use faith language here, but simple logic and academic reasoning. There has to be an absolute of what is God inspired, otherwise nothing can be inspired by God. Take a ride in a car for example. If you are moving forward and you don't mean to, you immediately look at other cars to see if they are also moving. If you are not sure about the cars you will immediately look at a building or post as it is stationary. Now, the building is not about to start moving because they simply don't do that. They are absolutely and relatively stationary.
In the same sense, not everything can be that stationary, absolutely God inspire writing. If all were God inspired writings then why would we look to certain documents such as the Bible and not to writings such as a book on Wikka or on how to murder someone the most precise way as a hitman? There has to be a line which is not crossed by so many writings. It would be the same as a writing inspired by a great speaker at a conference as compared to that of a writing inspired by an acid trip. They simply are not the same source.
On a separate note, if anyone is curious about who Ravi Zecharias is, please visit RZIM.org. The man is absolutely amazing to listen to. Go to the RADIO link at the top and click on either "Let My People Think," or "Just Thinking." Click on the archives listed below and just listen to one of the series in that archive. He is phenominal. I am going to warn you now that he comes from a Christian point of view, but he comes at it in such a logical and brilliant manner that he stumps nearly everyone he talks to. Please check his site out.

Metaphore in the Bible

2006-09-18T23:17:00.000-07:00

Last Thursday, Professor Sexson explained metaphor in the Bible. I couldn't agree more. Throughout the bible there is an aweful lot of metaphore. The example he used in class was with Jacob as he tells each of his children what they are as they pass by. One cannot literally believe that one child is a snake and another is some other animal. I don't think Jacob adopted animals and I don't believe they were born of a human being.
I just have to say that I am amazed by the number of writing styles in the Bible. I completely looked past such styles as metaphore. I knew there was poetry and narative along with geneology, but I completely looked past metaphore. It makes me wonder what other styles I have looked past in the Bible. I am most amazed that these different styles still direct to one main theme. I find myself appreciating the Bible more and praising God (I'm sorry if you don't believe, I am not trying to offend you by claiming that God exists) more every time I crack the thing open. That is all I have for now.

Documentary Hypothesis

2006-09-13T23:20:00.000-07:00

The more I have hear about this "documentary hypothesis," just makes me believe it that much less. It is quite impossible for it to be the truth now. The flaws in this theory are as long as the theory its self. To say that there were this many authors for the Torah and in different times throughout history is just plain ignorance! With the knowledge we have obtained by such brilliant minds as Ray Vander Laan, a Jewish Historian/teacher and Rob Bell, a pastor teaching out of Mars Hill Church, it is quite evident that the hypothesis does not line up with history.
First of all, if one were to look at the Bible, little alone the Torah, from a literary standpoint, they would realize that the reason for a "second" creation story if you so suggest is only because a main THEME. Theme is quite important in literature as far as I can remember. The fall of man just happens to be a vital piece in this collection of stories seeing how the rest of the book seems to focus on God's people. The fall of man is so vital in the Bible to understand why it is so vital for a Messiah to come in and restore God's people to what they were.
Second, the rabbis and jewish leaders have always memorized the entire Torah. To be a Pharisee or Sadducee, one had to memorize all of the Law front and back. The Hebrew culture started doing this before 633 B.C. (I will not refer to it as Before Current Era at all). History is vital to prove a hypothesis correct. We may be looking at this text from a Literary point of view, but to claim that a certain hypothesis is correct means you must know the history. It is unfair that we are only looking at the text from this one point of view. I believe we should look at the other views as well as the documentary hypothesis.
Finally, the multiple writing styles do not suggest multiple authors. In fact, according to a certain researcher by the last name of Davis, it is rediculous to believe that multiple styles suggest multiple authors. "To conclude that differences in style or vocabulary unmistakably indicate different authors is invalid for any body of literature. It is well known that a single author may vary his style and select vocabulary to fit themes he is developing and the people he is addressing. I goes without saying a young graduate student;s love letter will vary significantly in vocabulary and style from his research paper" (Davis, 1975, p. 23). Moses would have changed the style from narrative to geneologies. Another piece of evidence is Genesis 28:13 which uses both Jehova and Elohim. Wait a minute, doesn't that mean that J and P would have worked together? The sentence would not make sense without both working together and I do not believe that someone put this sentence together later because the context and text around it would make no sense. This verse states, "I am Jehova (Yahweh), the God (Elohim) of Abraham, the God (Elohim) of Isaac."
The contradiction to the documentary hypothesis are so many and so far out that it just doesn't line up. I don't consider it to be faith language to prove this wrong. Is it faith language to prove something to be true? Is it faith language to say that it is unfair to only view the Bible from the documentary theory? No! This class will not shake my faith and I do not mean to offend anyone flat out, but if something does offend you about me trying to prove the documentary theory wrong, then perhaps you may finally understand how it feels to have someone attack what you believe, even when the bible has more scientific, literary and historical evidence than anything else I have ever encountered. If you object this, I recommend both More than a Carpenter, by Josh Mcdowell and A Case for a Creator, who's author I am not sure of. I would like to argue theories against my faith because the university continues to attempt to prove the Bible wrong again and again, so why not? Afterall, Aetheism, Eevolutionism and Darwinism are all faiths.

Hooray Blogs!

2006-09-11T18:17:00.000-07:00

Well, I finally got my blog up! That is amazing because I really tend to procrastinate. This is supposed to be where I put what I learned for the day, but I really didn't learn anything seeing how I didn't haved English 211 today. I had to watch a gross video in my human and child developement class and I believe I was shaken to the core! I didn't need to see that video.
On a lighter note, I'm excited for class. Thats all I have for today.