Jericho

"Now Jericho was shut up from within and from without because of the people of Israel; none went out, and none came in. And The Lord said to Joshua, "See, I have given into your hand Jericho, with its king and mighty men of valor. You shall march around the city, all the men of war going around the city once. Thus shall you do for six days. And seven priests shall bear seven trumpets of rams' horns before the ark; and on the seventh day you shall march around the city seven times, the priests blowing the trumpets. And when they make a long blast with the ram's horn, as soon as you hear the sound of the trumpet, then all the people shall shout with a great shout; and the wall of the city will fall down flat, and the people shall go up every man straight before him." (Joshua 6:1-5)


Shortly before Moses died, having led the Jews to the promise land, he told Joshua to take everyone across the Jordan river because they own all of the land there. So Joshua sent two men ahead to spy on the people of Jericho where they met a woman named Rahab who had heard about the Hebrew God and asked that when they take over Jericho, they do not harm her family. When they returned God told Joshua the specific instructions for breaking down the way of Jericho:
1. Gather an army of men, priests, some guys to carry the ark of the covenant. All armed with ram horns.
2. March around the city once a day for six days and keep quiet while the priests blow the horns.
3. On the seventh day, march around it seven times and yell really lound on the seventh turn.

Remind me again why the Jews own Jericho?

Voila! Deconstruction. The population of Jericho evacuates, Joshua and his buddies get the city, and Rahab's family stays in safety.

We've all heard the saying about God working in mysterious ways, but I can't see the benefit of this exercise other than testing how well Joshua and the Jews can follow instructions. Is this simply another case of the bible teaching obedience through narratives, or is there a significance to what just happened?

Father Abraham

Although we had to cram it into the last few minutes of class today, the story of Abraham and Isaac really got me thinking , especially with my never having heard the word lacuna, or at least its definition (I'm chosing to block the memory of that death metal band).

At my church, the story of God asking Abraham to kill his only son for a burnt offering is one used to teach faithfulness and obedience. Abraham is taught as being a great man of faith because he was willing to give up his miracle-born son that he so long wished for without complaint or question unlike someone like Moses who would probably just say "why? you said I could have a son?" Because of this interpretation I always saw the fact that God spares Isaac was because he was just testing Abraham's faith since I was also taught that the consequences of Ishmael's birth and his consequential exile were the product of Abraham and Sarah's pride and disobedience. Abraham didn't trust God enough to give him a son the first time, so God was just testing that Abraham would do as he was told this time with the son he was originally promised.

It never occurred to me that the lack of kicking and screaming on Abraham's part could simply be a gap in the story (a lacuna) and not a profound faith in God's judgement. If what was said in class today is true, and God loves conflict, then why was that part left out? A showdown between the 99 year old Abraham and God over the life of a small boy would definitely give the story conflict, and possibly an awesome fight scene, or at least a divine shouting match. Abraham haggled for the lives of those living in Sodom and Gomorrah, why not his son?

The only conclusion I can come up with is that the author of this story wanted to portray a benevolent God, and like the good people of the Southern Baptist Church, give a narrative of the benefits of obedience.

Living here in the cracks between The Age of Men and The Age of Chaos, it is hard for us scientific minded fact gatherers to fathom a time when the world was explained through fables and myths. Where with the power of words rather that mechanics an entire universe can be created. We've sucked out every ounce of subjectivity while creating our logic, leaving virtually no wiggle room for creativity, but I can't help but wonder that if this is all one big circle, some cyclical system of language giving us the potential to return to the Age of the Gods, that we haven't already. What if our explanations of disease, birth, death, evolution, how oceans and mountains came to be, everything is just a modern day flood myth created by man to give him peace of mind? What if our science is just like the bible,? What if every non-believer is relying on just another brand of mythology.
Personally, I would love to return to the Age of the Gods, because then I wouldn't have to have any answers that I couldn't make true with my faith.

1577

The Bible is an antique Volume-
Written by faded Men
At the suggestion of Holy Spectres-
Subjects-Bethlehem-
Eden-the ancient Homestead-
Satan- The Brigadier-
Judas- the Great Defaulter-
David- tthe Troubadour-
Sin- a distinguished Precipice
Others must resist-
Boys that "believe" are very lonesome-
Other boys are "lost"-Had but the Tale a warbling Teller-
All the Boys would come-
Orpheu's Sermon captivated-
It did not condemn-

Emily Dickinson

First Rule of Leviticus, Don't Talk About Leviticus.

So it goes. I've reached the point in the bible that is supposed to be the stumbling block to my untrained eye, consuming me with boredom. Seeing as there are no boring books, only boring people, I feel obligated to give it a shot. Honestly, it isn't that bad once you figure out it is just a big rule book like any other. Leviticus was written by Moses as a kind of handbook for priests. It has rules for holy days, sacrifices, priest conduct, and generally just day to day "how to live" rules, including rules on sexuality and diet.
I don't know what it indicates about my character as a person, but when I read this giant list of rules my initial response was to question them and to think about the four phases of language described in The Great Code. Are they really concrete(discriptive) rules or just general (metaphoric) guidlines? Are there loopholes?
Apparently not when it comes to offerings. This large portion of Leviticus reads like a cookbook, giving specific intructions on how God likes his meat: "And if thy oblation be a meat offering baken in a pan, it shall be of fine flour unleavened, mingled with oil. Thou shalt part it in pieces, and pour oil thereon: it is a meat offering. And if thy oblation be a meat offering baken in the fryingpan, it shall be made of fine flour with oil."(Leviticus 2:5-7) There are several other rules on offerings including the use of unleavened bread and hiney, leading one to wonder if it was God or the priests making such specific food requests.
Perhaps the most potentially contriversial chapter of Leviticus is the 18th, in which God lays out the guidlines for sexuality. While some dance around the bible's view on homosexuality, I regretably found that the verse concerning it is quite concrete in its language. "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." I had never actually looked it up, assuming God would love someone regardless. On the bright side, this is the only verse about homosexuality in the chapter that I found.
While Leviticus is at times redundant and boring, it is an interesting historical account of the laws of the time.

Exodus after the Exodus

When I continued reading the book of' Exodus following the isrealite's journey across the Red Sea and the issuing of the ten commandments I became confused about the nature of God as a character in the plot.
While he claims himself to be a compassionate and patient diety, he continues to have these volitile fits of rage where he threatens to kill all of the Jews. Why is it that an omnipotent being capable of creating the universe is subject to such a human flaw as irrational emotion?
I thought that perhaps it had something to do with the author of this particular book, and upon closer reading I guessed that it is the "J" author. She does not fear God, but rather is inclined to give him humanlike traits, leading me to believe that these outbursts are included for a particular reason.
These exibitions of humanlike behavior support the idea introduced through the fact that God shares diologue face to face with Moses that God is not unlike his creation, making him easier to understand. This seems to me to fulfill the J agenda.

Let My People Go

Being raised in a Southern Baptist family like I was definitely gives you a different perspective when reading the old testament. (If you've ever read Jonathan Edwards' Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God you know exactly what I'm talking about.) All of the plagues, fire and brimstone, wiping out all of humanity is perfectly normal behavior for an omnipotent power like God and is not to be questioned. Human beings are inherantly bad and should be punished fpr their lack of potential to ever be enough to earn God's love. So I was told from a very young age.

The reason I mention this is because there were alot of things I found while reading the book of Exodus that made the remaining Southern Baptist in me cringe.

I thought I knew the story of Moses, but I was shocked upon reading how very little of the story in my head is actually in the bible. The things that he did that are in the bible confuse me and downright frustrate me. Here is a man saved from an imminent death as a baby, chosen by God to deliver his people out of bondage, actually having a conversation with God, and all he does is question him. Personally, if a flaming bush told me through the voice of God to do something, I'd do it, however crazy that makes me. It is Moses' audacity to stand there and argue with God, the great I Am, the alpha and omega and all that jazz.

Another audacious lot is the Jews that were delivered out of Egypt. I just don't understand how you could be saved from bondage, witness God parting the sea, and still be dumb enough to make a false idol, let alone complain the whole way to the promise land. As a southern Baptist, this absolutely blows me away. People want a benevolent God, but how can he be that when the even his chosen people blow it?

In the beginning...

While the details of the creation are thorough and easy to follow, the way in which the human race came about is a bit hazy to me. Adam was created from the dust of the Earth, and Eve was created from one of his ribs. They had children, but how was it that their children had children of their own? With no other women mentioned in the beginning of the book of Genesis, how did Cain have children? Where did Noah and Jacob come from? Perhaps the Bible has gaps in history and concentrates on those involved most in the "plot."

Speaking of Noah, I agree with Plotz in that I can't understand how the human race could become so awful in such a short time that they had to be eliminated or why the animals had to die for the mistakes made by humans. Reading it now certainly raises the question of when God will decide to flood the Earth again, wipe everything out and start over.