Category: Uncategorized

It was very interesting how these readings portrayed different views of how homosexuality is portrayed in the Bible, if it is even portrayed at all. In “Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19 1-29) on the Internet,” I found very fascinating how they talked about the different viewpoints on Sodom and Gomorrah that can be found on the Internet. There were some sources that viewed this story in a literal sense and some of those claimed how being gay is a sin based on what they were accused of in the story, and other sources that viewed the story in a literal sense claimed that what they were accused of wasn’t because they were gay, but because they were idolatrous and inhospitable. It is fascinating to me how this one story carries such a big importance on how people view the whole Bible regarding homosexuality. If someone interprets the story as the city of Sodom being destroyed because the people of Sodom were gay, then they interpret the Bible as anti-homosexual, and whoever interprets this story like this and believes that the Bible is the true Word of God, then they many homophobic themselves. If someone interprets the story as the city of Sodom being destroyed because of the inhospitality and idolatry the people of Sodom have, then there is no connection to homosexuality in this story, and the people who interpret it this way most likely don’t believe the Bible doesn’t advocate anti-homosexuality. It’s amazing how this one story has influenced so many people’s views of the Bible so strongly when it is not even proven to be calling homosexuality a sin.

In the reading of comparing the Yahwist and the Priestly Writer’s version of the flood story in the Bible, there are striking differences, which accentuate a belief system that was part of the writings of these. Each of these descriptions makes it a point to say that God was not happy with the proceedings of the humans on the land, and he wanted to make a clean start, so the most fitting human that God saw was Noah and his family. At least, there is that similarity, but there are many more differences. For example, the differing types of animals that were brought onto the ark to keep for repopulating the land. The Yahwist version has seven of each clean beast, while the priestly writers have two of every animal. This certain delineation paints a picture that the Yahwist derive worth from if the animal was clean or not, and the priestly writers see that the animals were not the problem with the Earth it was the people living on it. Which comes to the next point, once the animals and Noah’s family were on board the ark, according to the Yahwist version, the waters were over the land for 40 days, but in the priestly version, the flood was over the land 150 days. This difference might account for how long it took God to decide what was sufficient rain and decide what was the next step for the receding of the flood and repopulating the Earth. And in the end, the Yahwist version has Noah sacrifice one of the clean animals and being satisfied with the smell and promising to never do this again, and the Priestly Writer’s version reestablishes God as the sustainer of Earth and then the same promise. In the ending of the Yahwist, sacrificing is the belief that there are certainly clean and unclean things, but God is in favor of the cleanliness affirming that there are clean things in the world even when some others might not be as clean. Then the Priestly Writer’s hone in on the fact that God is the ruler and that as humans we should all be followers even though that we will never have to go through a catastrophic event such as the flood ever again

The fall of Adam and Eve, I have heard the story many times growing up in the church. Going through the story on an academic level put a spin on the train of thought that I had usually gone through when reading and analyzing the story. Some of the questions from the discussion that really struck me were if the tree of knowledge was really a tree, is ‘the fall’ just a transition from child-like innocence into adulthood or to disobedience, and did the fruit have meaning, or was it just a test of obedience.

I think that the tree was not an actual tree, but a metaphorical one to represent the knowledge that God had and that was intentionally kept from Adam and Eve to keep them innocent. This was kept away because God knew that if the humans could have this type of knowledge that he would not be able to keep them in his presence in the Garden but put them down on Earth away from the presence of God. Therefore, he just had one big rule for them to stay listen and to not take from the tree of knowledge.

The fall of Adam and Eve was not a transition from child-like innocence to adulthood, it was more an act of disobedience. It is a flaw of humans to want more than they should and disobey the set rules because of the curiosity that is inside of us. This was a curiosity that was fulfilled, but not in a good way. They were tempted and fell into the trap, and they got knowledge. While it might be seen as a transition into adulthood, this does not strike a chord with teaching a lesson and if God was telling them not to eat from this one tree knowing that one day they would eventually transition into adulthood, this knowledge probably would not have been forbidden.

For the fruit of knowledge, it stood for something that humans could not have because they could not enjoy the fullness that it brought. This fruit of knowledge was reserved for God, who knows all things and can comprehend it. It’s almost like going out to a high-end restaurant with five-star food, as a child, all that you are looking for is something that tastes good and fills your hunger you don’t comprehend the beauty of the food and the effort that was put into everything, but as an adult, you know the price, about the food itself, and you enjoy it more fully. God knows, and as limited humans, Adam and Eve did not know what knowledge would bring, which is why God intentionally told Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree. Once Adam and Eve would gain knowledge, it would be good in some aspects such as gaining a sense of yourself, but on the other hand, it would bring strife because of the differing views that would develop as a result of gaining knowledge.

I was most intrigued by the different creation stories between the Enuma Elish and the creation story in the Bible. For the Enuma Elish, there were many Gods who want a respite from their normal duties, so they create humans for the ‘dirty jobs.’ On the other hand, God creates humans in the sight of oneself to inhabit the Earth that he just made. There is a difference in this not just in the way that each party made the human, but in the responsibilities that the humans must do. God is trusting in humans and wants them to respect him, but at the same time, he gives more freely of what they can do. The gods in Enuma Elish give the humans responsibilities almost as if they need to complete certain tasks in a certain time without much freedom of movement otherwise. Another big difference between the two stories is the methodology in which things were accomplished. The Enuma Elish creates new beginnings after violent strife, while in the Bible God just creates it simply by speaking it into existence without a hardship. This greatly highlights the difference in the cultures around each belief system. The way of the Enuma Elish supports a much harder path at which things can be accomplished and that there is going to be a hardship along with any path that is taken. The Bible is a less harsh way of taking on tasks and making way for the path of least resistance. I am not saying that the people in the Bible have followed in a non-violent path, it is just that the promotion of peace to accomplish a task is more prevalent as exemplified in the separate creation stories.

I really appreciated this class section. I have had librarians come into some of my classes at Butler, but I still think this class section was very helpful because it specifically addressed the databases and LibGuides we would need to use for this class. I also would have had no idea how to find our LibGuide if she had not shown us, so I am very appreciative of that.

I also loved that Ms. French explained scholarship as a conversation. She explained very well that we are going to be taking pieces of these sources and putting them together in our own words to add on to the ongoing conversation. I think this was a very helpful class!

In this class period, I learned a lot about Genesis. I found this session very interesting because in the past I have only learned about the Bible from faith teachers at my school, so they taught me to think of the Bible in a very specific way and believe everything without question. I liked getting to talk about Genesis in this class because it allowed me to think of the book in a more critical light.

For example, in class, we talked about the Tower of Babel and what this could have meant. In high school, I was always taught that the Tower of Babel was a real tower in which people were trying to reach the Heavens because of their selfishness and greed. However, in class, we were told that the author is poking fun at an unfinished Zigguraut and is writing a form of fable to explain why this tower is unfinished and language. I appreciate this new view of the Biblical story as it allowed me to think differently about something that I have learned about for seven years of school.

Similarly, I appreciated the conversation we had about Abraham and why God told him to sacrifice Isaac. The story was meant to discourage people from sacrificing their children, so God tested Abraham’s belief and trust in Him and then gave him a sacrifice to offer in place of Isaac. I think this interpretation of the story makes God seem less like a puppet master and more in control because He is trying to show that He wants people of Abraham’s time to stop sacrificing their children. I am glad we took a critical understanding of Genesis today as it helped me better understand the book as a whole.

One thing from the readings that I found most interesting was in the reading about The Bible and Children when it says that the author of 1 Timothy says that childbirth is punishment to women for Eve’s actions in the Garden of Eden. It’s interesting because it goes back to this side of God that we don’t think about often, and that is his angry side. It is weird to think about an all powerful and loving being burdening women for all of time because of the first one’s actions. I think maybe what is really happening behind this story is a misogynistic man was interpreting The Bible and put his skew on it.

What is an even weirder idea is right after talking about women being punished for Eve’s actions, it’s said that The Bible discourages child bearing. This is such an odd idea because if you think of the nuclear contemporary family, you think of them holding Judeo Christian values and being very ethical, at least that’s what I think. Another reason this is an odd idea to me is when I think of spreading Gods love I think spreading it through children, and I don’t think I’m alone on that.

Hagar was the part of this reading/lecture that I enjoyed the most. I just find her character interesting aside from the theology that may be linked to her. A lot of the time we don’t think of the slaves or servants of amazing people, like George Washington’s slaves or JFK’s secretary. I may be wrong because sometimes it gets hard to hear on the zoom call, but it’s pretty amazing how much we could talk about her, and her relationship with Sarah and Abraham without even discussing Ishmael fully. I find it interesting how all three of the Abrahamic religions stem from the same family. When you fully think about it, it’s not that surprising since really all humans have a common ancestor if you go far back enough but that’s beside the point. The point is how we see a much stronger, healthier relationship between the Christians and Jews of today, then between the Muslims and either of the former. If we put everything politically and historically aside about the three, there may be a correlation from the exile of Hagar and Ishmael from the bloodline that would end up starting Christianity and Judaism.

I have thoroughly enjoyed learning about the different perspectives and views on creation in class. Being raised going to church, I always just accepted the Adam and Eve creation story in the Bible and never really wondered how other groups of people might view creation. Out of curiosity, I looked into some of the other ways people think the world was created, and while a majority of the creation stories involve some sort of supreme being beyond worldly comprehension, there are some discrepancies. One example of this are the “diver-myths,” a belief that the earth was once covered with water and then brought to the surface. It was so interesting to me how many different perspectives there actually are, and we probably don’t even know about all of the possibilities.

I do still believe the Genesis story, however, this class has caused my to expand my view. We discuss this often in class, that the Bible should not always be taken literally, and almost everything is up to interpretation. Whether a man was actually created from next to nothing and a woman was made with the sole rib bone of a man or not, we all have the freedom to question and believe what we want from these stories.

Reading the story of Abraham, Genesis 12-23, was very interesting to me. I have never read it before, and taking a look at it for the first time kind of shocked me with the amount of themes of rape, abuse, and slavery. The story of Hagar was obviously painful, with her having child of Abraham because of Sarah’s inability to have children, and the disrespect she incurred because of it. While in class we mainly touched on this particular story, and also the flood stories, there were some other parts of the reading that I was confused about.

Genesis 19 tells the story of Lot and two angels that came into the city. Lot has them to eat with him and stay the night at his house. Then later in the night, a group of men come and demand that Lot releases the two angels to them so they can have sex with them. Then Lot is basically like, no, take my virgin daughters instead. The angels strike all the men with blindness and then destroy the city. This part was very uncomfortable for me, especially because Lot was so willing to let his daughters be raped. I was wondering if the group of men were punished because of homosexuality, or because of their desire to rape. Or maybe both? Which is worse in God’s eyes? This was definitely the second most uncomfortable part of Genesis 12-23, with the first being Lot’s daughters getting him drunk and sleeping with him to become pregnant. Anyways, I’m curious how we will see these disturbing themes in other stories in the Bible.