[OT] Further Listening

Hey I came across another website that is reasonably reputable and has
lectures you can download. Just thought this may be of interest to
someone here. Here's the address: http://www.covenantseminary.edu/worldwide/en/OT230/OT230.asp.

Cheers

Jimmy

[OT] Reading the OT

I've been reading around hermeneutics recently trying to get a feel of
where it is all going. I don't know anything about anyone in this
group nor if this is a topic already covered, but I was wondering how
we all read the bible? A survey was recently done in New Zealand
around reading the bible. 11% of Christians in NZ read the bible
daily and 13% read it weekly (http://biblesociety.org.nz/global-news/
bible-unread-bestseller/). This is pretty dismal. Is it our faith,
our worldview or the way we read the bible or something else that has
produced these results? How should we read the bible? I believe that
the bible offers the reader a possibility. A different way of doing
life. When I read Isaiah 40 - 55 (the Servant Songs) I see a way of
living that Christ fulfills and the church is to live like this until
Jesus' return. This is a textual reading where I develop 'who' the
character is in relation to 'what' and 'why'. Take Hezekiah for
example, his first 8 days in office he re-opens and re-furnishes the
temple of Yahweh. This shows 'who' he is as a person, same as the
Servant as mentioned previously in Isaiah. But this presents other
problems, do we read the OT in an attempt to discover what the author
is trying to portray? what about the authors context? or do we read it
as how the audience would perceive what has been recorded? Should we
read it as literary text and move from the author? Or does meaning
only come from the reader? Apply all these questions when trying to
interpret the Servant Songs in Isaiah and a never ending problem is
produced.
Where I am at is that the text is only given meaning when the
reader actually reads the text. There is a relationship between the
text and reader, the text is given meaning and is changed during
reading. In the same way the text changes the world of the reader.
And the reader cannot interpret the text without formulating some way
of interpreting what the author is trying to say in the text, or the
world in which the textual content is set. Instead of approaching the
text objectively, we need to own our presuppositions and be honest
with ourselves and the text. Perhaps instead of scrutinizing over the
text, the author and it's origins, perhaps we should read the text and
it's content. As the content develops a story is played out, like a
picture being painted. Upon observing this picture both reader and
text is changed. But let's not throw out the baby with the bath water
because this has the potential to become a highly liberal reading,
e.g. God is not love, but hate. So we are required to intelligently
inquire into the text, it's context, background, author as to grasp a
more grounded understanding of the text. This is to prevent a liberal
reading of it, but not make bible reading so specialized that people
give up before they start.

Just some thoughts. Feel free to give feedback, even critical
feedback is good.

Jimmy.

[OT] Relationships in Genesis 1 -11.

This is a combination of many readings put together in preparation for
my exam. There are many references missing as I don't have time to go
into that much detail simply for exam prep. I certainly did not read
the bible and come up with this on my own, but thought it might be of
interest!

Male Female Relationship in
Genesis 1 to 11.
___________________________

For many centuries the world has be dominantly a patriarchal society.
The bible itself can be read to support this, and has in fact been
doing this for generations. The hierarchical system goes God, Man,
Women and then birds, fish and beasts. Only in the last century or so
has a feminist movement been able to push equality back into the
picture landing women right next to men on the hierarchical chart.
However, this has not come easily.

Equality is now argued by most contemporary scholars. In chapter
1:26-31 we see the creation of human beings as made in the image of
God. A detailed creational account of human beings is not witnessed
until chapter 2 but it must be noted that here 'human beings' mean
both Adam and Eve. Their gender differences are put aside and a
function is assigned them to be God's administrators on earth. They
both received God's blessing and his divine command to be fruitful, to
multiply and subdue the earth and have dominion over all creatures.

The gender differences come more to the fore in chapter 2. We have
Adam naming the animals and finding no suitable helper. Thus God
intervenes, and like a father passing off his bride (Von Rad, Genesis,
82) he creates Eve. But what does 'helper' mean in relation to Adam
(or man)? Following is a couple of interpretations as outlined by
David Clines [What does Eve do to help... 1989] as he focuses on the
interpretation of Gen 2:18. In his article he tries to take an
egalitarian stand-point and reflects on other feminist works.

1) The word 'helper' in Hebrew can be taken as a relational term, like
how Yahweh helped out Israel throughout it's history (c.f. Gen 49:25;
Ex 18:4; Deut 33:26; Ps 121:1-2; Hos 13:9). It is a beneficial term
that does not reveal the position of a person within the relationship,
but describes mutual equality. However, there are those that push this
a bit far, for example, Trible [c.f. Clines, 28] would take this
further and suggest that while a relational term it brings with it
notions of superiority.

2)There is also the suggestion that seeing the two Hebrew words
together 'ezer' (helper) and 'neged' (lit. like what is in front of
him, TNIV translated 'suitable for him') connotes in itself equality.

Clines concludes that his understanding brings him closer to 1. He can
not help but notice that any 'helper' will find themselves in a place
of inferiority. As the helped, one can accept or decline the 'helpers'
assistance, they can even regulate how much the 'helper' can actually
help them. Thus rather than a status, he interprets 'helper' to be a
relational term that connotes equality between man and woman. Clines
would not suggest that 'helper' brings superiority, even if by
technical status the 'helper' is as in the case of Yahweh. Adam and
Eve are created differently as to make up for each others deficits but
also as equals; Eve the bearer of children and Adam the worker of the
ground.

So what does it mean then for man to rule women as seen in 3:16? It
could mean any one of the following:

1) The women has fallen under the curse of greatly increased child
birth pains, but shall be ruled by a desire for a husband on a sexual
level anyway

2) That women shall now willingly desire a husband on a psychological
and emotional level. This is different to 1 in that it is not limited
to a sexual desire, but companionship, intimacy and support.

3) That women shall now desire what it is that their husband desires.

Through etymological studies Sandra Foh shows that an interpretation
of this on a sexual level is highly inaccurate. It is also pointed out
that a woman willing to seek a husband for support, intimacy and
companionship is not living what should be a punishment. Lastly,
experience shows that women do not all necessarily desire the same
things as their husband. Also, a woman who is willingly submissive to
their husbands desires seems incongruent with the context of Paul's
teachings on being submissive to their husbands; if women were already
submissive what would be the need for Paul to write on it? It is
evident that a submissive feature is not prevalent in all women.

Instead, Foh argues that before sin entered humanity, male ruled
female. They loved and cherished each other, but post-sin the rule
became tyrannical, and females began to rival their male counterparts
for rulership which was not a part of the original created order. What
started as love and cherish became to rule and dominate (Kidner,
Genesis). What occurs as a result of the fall is not to be interpreted
as curses. Rather they are to be understood as consequences for eating
of the tree of good and evil. Foh draws a parallel between 3:16 and
4:7 showing that as a result of sin's entry into the world man must
now try more actively to rule his wife as Cain had to be more active
in his rulership of sin. However, man's rule of his wife must be
congruent with Paul's teaching, this is to be loving and gentle, not
abusive and oppressive.

Cheers

Jimmy

[OT] Hebrew Cosmology

The cosmology (understanding of the physical universe) of the Hebrews from whom we get the Old Testament is reflected in the Genesis account of the creation in chapter 1.  

  1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

The introductory sentence telling us what is going to be described does not mention the creation of the waters, as they already existed.  A description of the creation of heaven and earth and that which inhabits them follows.

  2a: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

Before the creation begins, the earth is unformed, and the rest is a dark expanse of water called "the deep."  

   2b: And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

 
In Hebrew the "ruach" of God moves on the waters.  Ruach is translated as  "spirit," "breath" or "wind."  The concept of a "spirit" had not yet entered into Hebrew thought at this point in time, so it was likely understood that the wind or breath of God moved on the waters.  This is the 1st act of God in the creation.

  6 And God said, Let there be a firmament  in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

The firmament can be visualized as an upside down bowl or plate with air in it, separating the waters above the firmament and waters below the firmament.  The root of "firmament" in Hebrew means "hammer out", implying a horizontal area.

  7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

  The surface of the bowl was the sky, or firmament.  Later the fowl fly in the firmament, and the sun, moon and stars are placed in the firmament.

  8a And God called the firmament Heaven.

Just as other created items are named, God names the firmament "Heaven."

  9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

Dry land is then created below the firmament, with water above being held back by the firmament, and waters below the dry land.  This might appear like an upside down dish (firmament) on a bed of clay (dry land) submerged in a pool (the deep). 

Later, the story of the flood refers to the waters of "the great deep" coming up through the ground, and through windows in the firmament to flood the earth "the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.[Gen 7:11] "  and when the rains stop, "The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained; [Gen 8:2]"

Several Hebrew cosmology diagrams & commentary can be viewed at this site: http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/ThreeTieredUniverse.htm

[OT] Monotheism

Monotheism is the idea that there is one, single God over all.  Polytheism is the idea that many gods exist.  Most primitive cultures are polytheistic.  I suspect that as people try to explain their world without the benefit of science, they propose supernatural theories, such as animism, magic, ancestor spirits and polytheism as forces defining their environment.  With the complexity of the world, it is easy to theorize why the idea of multiple gods with varying agendas could be proposed by primitive man.  With a little imagination it is easy to see how a primitive people without the benefit of a scientific approach could develop a polytheistic theology in order to explain the world around them.

Some early middle eastern religions began to approach monotheism such as Amenhotep IV of Egypt, who attributed the creation to a single god, the sun-god Aten.  It appears that some of his predecessors held similar ideas.  Amenhotep IV (married to Nefertiti) banned the priesthoods of other gods, altered monuments, illegalized all but Aten images (solar ray disc, see attached picture) and even changed his name to Akhenaten, meaning "servent of Aten".  His ideas were later rejected and Egypt returned to polytheism.

Most Middle Eastern polytheistic religious texts begin with a theogeny, or the story of the origin of the gods.  These stories are couched in epic poems.  There is evidence of biblical writers  responding to these earlier texts, and that knowledge of these texts were common at the time Genesis, Isaiah, Psalms & Job were written (more on this later).

Yahweh* is not included in a theogeny -- because He always existed, a key concept of monotheism.  How could an unchanging, perfect being come into existence, or change?  Unlike other middle eastern religions, Israelites do not have festivals commemorating events in their God's life -- because He is non-changing, so there are no events to commemorate.  Festivals instead are about historic events of nation of Israel.

Today, three of the world's major religions descended from the Hebrews; Judaism, Christianity & Islam.  All three are monotheistic and claim to worship the God first described by the early Hebrews.

* "Yahweh" can also be construed as "YHWH" (Hebrew text, traditionally without vowels), or "Jehovah," (English).