"The past is not dead," William Faulkner remarked in his Nobel Prize speech; "it is not even past." Scripture is deeply archaic and starkly contemporary, universalist and tribal, conservative and radical, personal and public, hotly physical and coolly metaphysical. It can and should yield nourishment to many different sorts of hunger. The Bible's irreducible excess, its contradictoriness, its multiplicity, make it dazzling and durable as literature; it might also be said that these qualities point toward the irreducible plenitude and unknowability of God (3).
I would like you to respond to this passage. You are welcome to refer also to other parts of the Ostriker introduction or to what we've read in Genesis so far as part of your response.
Please post your responses no later than Tuesday, January 29, 10pm.
35 comments:
Alicia Ostriker's introduction is absolutely inspiring- it calls everyone in the world to read and appreciate scripture according to their own needs and their own thinking. This seems a sharp contrast to many traditions who merely view the Bible as an ultimate source of "right and wrong" as well as a finished, final, already interpreted text over which we all must slave to understand in black and white what is meant by it. Here, though, we see that the Bible is alive, and can help us all feel more alive. She illustrates other, beautiful ways in which scripture is used that will probably be interpreted by many as contradictory to what the Bible says. For example, the most well-known passage in Ruth being read in many gay weddings. Contradictions, she illustrates, are everywhere in the Bible and should clearly point out that scripture cannot serve an "inflexible agenda" but only an open heart and a mind willing to think, feel, and awaken.
-Amy Leigh Schutts
I thought what Ostriker wrote allowed the Bible to seem more multi-faceted than just right or wrong, as Amy Leigh mentioned. I find that the contradictions actually lead the Bible and it's messages to be applicable to so many DIFFERENT situations that arguments are bound to pop up over such inconsistencies, especially in today's environment. The world has so many opposing view points, just as the Bible has so many opposing interpretations. This is what ENGL 264 is all about: "Turning" the words of the Bible over and over again to examine all sorts of interpretations that can affect our lives differently, depending on how we look at this complex work. It's how the Bible has been able to sustain itself throughout the ages as a text to guide the live of many, many people.
--Kate Padgitt
In the introduction of "For the Love of God", Ostriker gives many examples for why she calls the bible an open book. In the same way in Faulkner's passage, he talks of how the bible is open. For example, they both say it suits the needs for many different people and their individual needs. Later in her introduction, I particularly like the analogy of "every interpretation becomes a part of the ever-growing tree". This for me shows how the bible should be read with an open mind with a new interpretation to come about each time someone new reads it. Many people look at the bible as a way of looking for guidance in their life. If only they would ask more questions and treat it as a living piece of literature. As Faulkner states, "the past is not dead, it is not even past."
In the introduction of
"For the Love of God"
Alicia Ostriker interprets
that the Bible is an "on going process"
which means that
we can read the Bible in many different perspectives.
Even if a person
isn't a Christian or Catholic.
They can read the Bible
and definitely
feel a strong emotion
or get inspired by it.
"The past is not dead."
In my point of view,
I think it means that
the TRUTH never changes
and it can still be used
whenver.
Everything that had been
created by something/someone
always evolves.
So as the Bible.
I feel as though this book has given permission to feel the scripture in a personal manner. After I read this introduction, an image kept appearing in my head, of a person literally breathing into the Bible and bringing their own stories to life through their imagination. I may be practicing the human narcissism we discuss so much in class, but the thought of people reading the text "with their own eyes and minds" is refreshing.
A part of me is very comforted to realize that there is no way of knowing all the answers and seemingly the more one tries to understand things, the more confused one becomes. So I take this as meaning their is no absolutely correct way of doing things and there is no absolutely correct way of interpreting the Bible.
I think I'm just starting to realize how interesting it truly is to look at the Bible solely as a piece of literature. Look at it as if it was any other book. I think people are so often turned off to reading the Bible because it means that they would have to read it to find wrong vs. right. Many times I think it also seems like one must interpret it as a Methodist, Baptist, or so on would. It's almost like..."ok...I read it and what I thought it was saying seemed most similar to the beliefs of ______, so that's what church I'll go to." I apologize if this seems to become too religious, I guess I just feel that Ostriker is in fact breaking these previous ideas down. She's saying that what you read doesn't have to fit into a major category of what a large group of others believe. Even more, she seems to be saying that as you turn it over and over you will likely always think something different. At one point in the introduction the idea of the Bible as a law book or being authoritative was mentioned. This comment actually struck me as ironic the more I thought about it because when the Bible is looked at as law it is thought of as set in stone and unchanging, when in our society law is continually changing, being reworded, added to, or some of it is even taken out.
I think what this passage comes down to is exactly what Kate mentioned, that examining many interpretations can affect our lives in many ways. This I believe is the purpose of the Bible. Sure it can be thought of as a guiding beacon for government policy or religious beliefs, but more than any of these it should be a means by which we examine our own lives, our experiences, and in all aspects our understanding of existence. We should take King Solomon’s words to heart and realize we cannot contain a complete understanding of God in our reality but maybe we can contain an understanding of ourselves. Here lies the source of contradiction and multiplicity in reality and the Bible as well; two people never share the same life, but that life is split among all in the same world. We all can experience life and we all can experience the Bible, the difference lies in how we do it.
~Dan K
"the past is not past"... that comment still bewilders me. Does it mean that the past repeats itself. Or does it mean that we learn from the past so much that it becomes a part of our future. When I first read the intro, I quoted this passage in my notes because of how beautifully it was expressed as well as how polar the bible is portrayed. It is mystifying how this masterpiece can be both sides of all of these coins at the same time. Somehow being “archaic and starkly contemporary” is a huge feat that explains why so many people are still intrigued by it to this day. I think my favorite part of this passage is that it “yields nourishment to many different sorts of hunger”. Such strong language of fulfillment. I can’t wait to eat from the tree of teachings that is our bible.
This passage basically summarizes my whole view on the world. Isn't this what makes the world so beautiful? Knowing that nothing important can ever be definitively answered. I especially love the comment "...make it dazzling and durable as literature." Durable is such an interesting word to use here, but it describes it perfectly. Because everything can be seen from infinite angles, we will never ever be finished discussing and debating the Bible.
Someone very close to me said once that the reason he didn't like the Bible and didn't believe in it was because it contradicted itself often. However, once I started this class and I realized the beauty of all these contradictions, it strengthened my belief that, again, contradictions make the world go round. How boring would this place be if everyone agreed on everything? That is why I embrace differences in people.
So if we continue to "turn" this piece of literature we will continue to turn the world.
I'm excited about reading this Ostriker book! Her insights and poetic prose remind me of the Rabbi David Wolpe books I've read. I've always come away from his books with a deep sense of awe and respect for the poignant wisdom to be found in rabbinic writings. Twice I've read his book, "In Speech and In Silence." I learned from him that the prophetic passages about the Messiah are sung in the temple in a minor key. In my opinion, Ostriker's words have that same minor key quality about them.
The Solomon quote to which Dan referred moved me too. "Behold, the heaven of heavens cannot contain thee: how much less this house that I have builded" (I Kings 8:27) This passage and Ostriker's comments about it set me to thinking about how far too often we try to shove God into our own rigid doctrinal boxes when really, conforming Him to our idea of Him isn't possible at all. The following poem was a result those musings.
God in a Box
God does not allow Himself to be
contained in any box that is not
of His choosing. But He may choose
to abide in any ordinary box
for a time. He may even
draw Himself inside and draw over
the opening a snug lid so that whoever
passes by and discerns a viola d'amore
resonance, or detects the faint
fragrance of apples, then, curious,
uncaps the box
may gasp in delight to encounter Him there,
in such an ordinary place, to hear the
intrigue of His infinite symphonies and see
the aurora borealis of His colors rise to
fill the room, then spill over
to excite the deep night sky.
Daye Phillippo
January 2008
I like Kevin's interpretation of "the past never changes"- that really, it's the truth that never changes. I'm sure this sentiment could be stretched to find instances that would prove this to be wrong, but when I first read this it clicked, especially with this passage. This is fitting because isn't trying to find the "truth", whether it be one that is universal or one that is personal, a reason why so many people consult the bible (and why, at the same time, so many have a problem with it)? Comfort is immediately felt or frustration immediately ensues when we try to validate something, a word or action, based on a truth. For some, these feelings are magnified when examining the bible with the hope of validation.
This passage pinpoints how so many people regard the Bible, and yet it also acknowledges that even after defining as much as possible, it is still undeniable that there are aspects of it that are "unknowable", just as God is described. The Bible is fascinating as it continues to evolve and be molded into each culture, each belief system, each government. Some people extol a certain passage and their interpretation, while another group is doing everything they can to discredit that view and provide their own. This is the very conflict that causes unrest that can be seen throughout our world, but at the same time, it is a conflict that will continue to make the Bible even more "durable" and "dazzling" than it is today.
I love the idea of looking at the Bible with new eyes and an open mind. As Kate suggested in her post, the point of this class is to “turn” the words of the scripture over and over and it takes both of these to do so effectively. I love Ostriker’s comment at the end of the introduction, “May they read for joy and personal illumination, may they read with compassion for human suffering, may they read for the love of God” (pg 8). Each time that I pick up my Bible that is exactly how I try to view it looking for something new, exciting, and enlightening. I took this class in hopes to read and discuss different interpretations of the Bible. As many people have brought up how the Bible contains contradictions and how they feel these will help to foster more discussion. There is really so much within the Bible to discuss and “turn” over. The Bible holds so much possibility and I feel that is what Ostriker tries to address in the quote taken from her introduction on page 3. As Danielle T. pointed out as well, I love her illusion to the Bible as providing nourishment to many different sorts of hunger and I find that can be especially true with the way most people read the Bible today which is looking to answers to their questions. Dan comment referring back to Solomon’s statement that we can not try to understand God completely in our reality I felt was similar to how we are always on a search for answers within scripture. Ostriker brings up the point that all the qualities about the Bible which are so intriguing relate to the unknowability of God which left me reflecting on how truly unknowable and yet relatable He is.
Michelle
The quote by Solomon has been mentioned a few times already, "the heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded," but the idea of this passage is what excites me most about this class. Too often the Bible is used to set laws, build boxes, and paint the world black and white, when in actuality in this life we will only be able to see the back of God, as Moses did. Perhaps the bible allows us to all see different angles of God, (though not his face) that are sometimes conflicting and sometimes overlapping, yet the same God. We all will have our ideas and beliefs, but until we die we will never see his face--or fully grasp the bible.
Last Winter I read an incredible novel called "House of Leaves" by Mark Z. Danielewski. The main character wakes one morning to find a door in the middle of his living room wall that leads to a corridor that is always changing, ever shifting. As I think about The Bible and my almost seven year love affair with it, I can't help but think of those shifting rooms. Just when I feel like my mind has a pretty firm grasp on everything, everything changes.
You would think that would be confusing or frustrating, but I've found it to be infinitely beautiful.
Ostriker gave me a powerful reminder when she quoted King Solomon, saying, "Behold, the heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded." To Solomon, this was in reference to his building; to me, thousands of years later, it is an ever-powerful reminder that (as much as I'd like to) I will never quite "get it".
Rob Bell, one of my favorite authors [and that is saying something... I usually HATE "religious" writings], stated something that reverberated within me--one of those statements that echoes through your soul. He wrote this about Christianity, but its poignance to this discussion is unquestionable.
He said:
"The very nature of orthodox Christian faith is that we never come to the end. It begs for more. More discussion, more inquiry, more debate, more questions.
It's not so much that the Christian faith HAS a lot of paradoxes. It's that it IS a lot of paradoxes. And we cannot resolve a paradox. We have to let it be what it is.
Being a Christian then is more about celebrating mystery than conquering it."
-Ian Mullins-Zugelder-
This is exactly what we have been saying the whole time in class. The bible can be read in many different ways and you can draw whatever you want from it. There are many ways you can look at it, and find what youre looking for. One person may read it in a spiritual way and others just for knowledge, who knows. But the main point is that, the bible can speak to many different people in many ways, and thats why it is such a great book. There is not one solid definement of what exactly is in the bible, therefore, it can help a wide population of people, all in different ways.
I know there are many post on this subject and I think it will be nearly impossible to state something unique or new... But I do feel the bible is something that can be interpreted differently for different people. I would think everyone would agree with this.
When I look at a passage, it could be completely different from what someone else interpreted it as... It depends on the way one was raised. I grew up in a Pentecostal church; I am not going to view the bible the same way as a Catholic, Jew or someone who has not grown up in church. No matter how hard I try to look at the bible as strictly literature, it is not going to be possible because I have preset views on the stories and the lessons I am supposed to get from those passages. I have been drilled with these stories my whole life, it is hard to interpret them any different.
I do agree the bible is an ever changing text. I believe it is not dead because it would be impossible to relate to anything within its context if it were a dead text. It was written in such a way that it could be applied thousands of years later.
As long as there is the bible, there will be different versions that are aimed towards different people...
I find this passage quite striking because I have recently read the French Confession of 1559 which outlines in no uncertain terms the Reformists desire to take scripture as the ultimate authority which cannot and should not be changed or reinterpreted by man. Personally I find a fair bit troubling with the literalist view point, simply because there is so much contradiction in the scriptures that it would soon become not only extremely difficult to take any strong message from the Bible, but extremely foolish too.
I really wish I had come across a view on the Bible like Ostriker has when I was younger, because the almost universally accepted answer to inconsistencies within the Bible was simply to 'have faith' and not to question it. I think the Ostriker's idea of reading the Bible as a text open to interpretation is one of the best considered interpretations I have come across.
Kieran O'Connor.
I agree with Ostricker; everything is in the Bible. It is likely that if the Bible did not contain all the contradictions and inconsistencies that I would not have survived as a piece of literature or as a religious text. It is the fact that it contains everything that allows the individual reader to find their own meaning in the text. It is an open and ambiguous text at times giving no specific or concrete information. This also allows for it to apply to different time periods. The lessons being taught and the stories being told applied to the people then and to people now. It can be adapted to different cultures too. People of all cultures and ethnicities, whether they believe it to be a religious text or a piece of literature, can relate to numerous aspects of the Bible, finding portions they agree with and portions they do not agree with it.
Alicia Suskin Ostriker is a person that writes books of poems. She has a superb education in literature due to the fact that she has a bachelors, masters, and a PhD, which may account for her meticulously analytical interpretational perspective to decipher possible meanings of the BIBLE! By this I mean "Turn it and turn it, for everything is in it" may possibly be her way of saying read, read, read for what you want to hear & know is in the BIBLE it just DEPENDS on how you read OR interpret it!! I imagine that words & phrases were altered in the translation of Akkadian --> Tanakh (Biblical or Classical Hebrew) --> NUMEROUS MORE LANGUAGES --> ? --> ? --> ? -->= ENGLISH!!!!
Human perception is truly amazing. As a child, I loathed spinach. But, after many years, I have come to really enjoy it. I watch a movie for the second time, and I see it in a whole new light. Why is this? Spinach is still spinach, and the movie is still the same old movie. As Kevin and Leah have hinted, these are constant. It is rather myself (my perception, my knowledge, my understanding) that has changed. Only relative to myself were these things changing. It is in this way that we perceive to turn the Bible. It is in this way that the Bible, or any other piece of literature, is able to receive so many of these interpretations.
This does not dissolve the awe of these interpretations, but rather heightens it. Faulkner states, "The past is not dead, it is not even past." In light of this, the past affects the present, and thus, the past can always be seen through the lens of the present. Through this, it is as we change that our perception likewise changes. This is the beauty of it all: that we are able to interpret anew every time we read. It is through our interpretation, that we are able to see change within ourselves, or the lack thereof. To say that our interpretation of the Bible must be constant is to say that we must be constant; not changing. To deny such change would be to deny that which makes us human.
-- Nathan H
As we have agreed from Ostriker quote of “turn it and turn it”, the Bible provides many opportunities for interpretation and re-interpretation, and then even another re-interpretation. I too believe that the many different perceptions of the text help keep the Bible living. But I also believe that not everything is so wishy-washy and where the gray disappears and the black and white is clear are virtues and laws that seem to be held in every culture. I will admit that this course has revealed to me several interpretations that I never noticed and I am anxious to see if even the Ten Commandments can be interpreted in multiple ways. For now, I will say that do not kill means do not kill and perhaps there are more truths that man can hold fast to for the life of the Bible.
We have also talked about how sometimes the Bible can lead to so many interpretations because of how the original witnesses to the events have tried to describe them, and then how others have tried to write what they have described. How fascinating must some of these miracles have been to make their descriptions as confusing as they are? Genesis 3:24 must have been pretty amazing so that the best way to describe it is “the winged-sphinxes and the flashing, ever-turning sword to watch over the way to the Tree of Life.” I wonder what really happened.
I do look forward to finding more new stories in the old familiar ones and continuing to learn more about what I thought I already knew.
"Turn it and turn it, for everything is in it" is the most enlightening and all-encompassing quote in the introduction of “For the Love of God”. It reveals that no matter how hard you look, or how many times you turn the text over and over desperately searching for clues leading to a common truth, ultimately all we are given are words on a page. The words are intended to be presented in the manner in which they were recorded; in their entirety “…everything is in it”. This leads me to believe that there is little room for reading between the lines and searching for hidden information, the way that religions tend to interpret the text to conform to and encourage their purposes and agendas. What comes from the text is what comes to you while reading it, nothing more, nothing less.
-Bet$y Robbins.
As being one of the few, i feel, to have actually read the bible, this passage is not only exciting to me, but also a little scary. "The Bibles irreducible excess, its contradictoriness, its multiplicity, make it dazzling and durable as literature". This quote to me, means a lot. I know that from reading the Bible I will find many things from it that I will not understand, or not read as far into as some people, and I guess that that is one of the things that I am afraid of. I want to be able to appreciate all of the flaws in the Bible and question the way in which it was written. After reading a couple of Ostrikers chapters, I see that I can be one of the people that will see the Bible as more of a piece of Literature, more than something that has religious ties. So I guess that the point that I am trying to make is that it is sometimes hard for me to be able to analyize all the words, and FIND the contraditions that everyone finds in class because I feel as though they are tyed with religion. I am simply reading it for the words that they are, and I am excited that hopefully I will be able to find some of the points Ostriker talks about.
There have been a couple things I have realized recently. One being that I guess I'm just not that interested in reading the Bible as literature. I have found that it is quite a challenge, but I guess that's a good thing.
The second being that there are definitely contradictions in interpretations of the Bible, which makes sense. Obviously I didn't just realize this, but I realized that is what we are talking about. There aren't necessarily contradicting scriptures, but there are certainly ambiguities. We don't always get the whole story or all the details. It is open to interpretation.
Nathan touched on the idea that we are the one's who have changed, our interpretations and ideas. I agree. The Bible itself never actually changes. I believe God to be the same way. It is our perception and knowledge of such that deepens, expands, and changes...maybe even gets distorted somehow.
I agree with Ostriker, that God is unknowable. Many others commented on this as well. It is somehow satisfying to know that you will never have all the answers or completely and fully know/understand God in our life here on earth. There is always something more to learn and always a time for change.
With the many descriptions of the Bible in this passage, Ostriker ultimately unveils why so many different interpretations of the bible exist. The reason I was so looking forward to this class was because it was an opportunity to read and discuss the bible free from any bias. However, that is a very difficult thing to do. Most people dive into their reading of scripture with pre-conceived notions or previously held biases that alter their ability to read the bible openly in search of its true messages. An important question to ask is what if someone who had never read or even ever heard of the Bible came across it and read it cover to cover, simply looking for its truths? What kind of understanding would they walk away with? What if they discovered something entirely different than what is taught in contemporary christian churches today? The reason the bible can be said to make certain contradictions is simply because it is often taken out of context. People often like to conform the Bible into what they would like it to say or teach. The fact is that we are taking a 2000 year old book that was originally written in Hebrew and a little Aramaic (and the NT in Greek) in an entirely different culture and society and attmpting to fully understand it with a 21st century American mindset. That is the main reason why so many interpretations of the bible exist today. But it is also what makes the study of the Bible so fascinating.
These qualities and contrasts of the bible help me to appreciate more of its personality. The struggles I have with passages, the comfort I receive from it, the guidance it gives are like a relationship with a friend. You can study a friend and scrutinize his mannerisms and diction, but he or she will become a lab rat, and you will only be a researcher. Taking time to understand a friend is better than studying them. I welcome anything that causes me to dig deeper into to the bible and into myself and I hope to keep turning and turning the bible for the rest of my life. Ostriker’s comments are one more voice to help me appreciate and realize the depth of what the bible is, like I would appreciate a close friend.
-Adam
Wow! When I skimmed through the comments from classmates I could tell that this would be an interesting read. Little did I know that it would hit so close to home. I have always been a regular church goer, attending Sunday School, and church camp every summer. Through those experiences I was able to get to know God and read his teachings. I never read it on my own or really sat down and thought about what was being said, I kind of just trusted what it said because that is what I was taught.
As time has passed and I have grown into the young adult I am today my eyes have become open. I can not pin point exact things that contributed to this growing process but I know there have been many. College led me to be very independent and think more for myself. I have always had strong attitudes and options about many things that I was willing to share. I think it might be some of the socializer in to, but I am always looking for a good discussion. I have come to realize that one cannot live word for word from text. The Bible is a great resource to study and mold parts of your life around and learn good and bad. In return it should also not being taken so seriously.
As mentioned in class many times, there are contradictions and things that simply do not make sense to us, especially in present day situations. That is why I have always felt that it is good to study the Bible and other text and come up with your own opinion of them and go forth with that. It is clear that the book is a compilation of many authors, over a large span of time, going through many translations. There is bound to be some error.
In the same vain, it must be realized that no two people will have the exact same opinion and interpret teachings or events the same. Therefore, it is important to think about everything, question everything, form your own opinions. Stick out in the crowd and do what you believe in no matter what! I mean I do not think that you should kill someone because that is what you think the right thing to do is.
I like how Ostriker says "The interpretations in the following chapters are examples of how one contemporary reader responds to this open book at the beginning of the twenty-first century" and then continues by saying "With luck, readers will instantly being interpreting for themselves". She is like she is saying "this is just my opinion, you don't have to agree with it and in fact I hope that maybe you don't. Form your own opinion and thoughts about what I have written. Please do not conform to it and think that it is all true and the only right way".
I just can not wait to read more into The Five Books of Moses and For the Love of God and have more wonderful discussions. The world is ever changing and we will always find different means from text that match particular moments. Another reason why the Bible is such an ever changing piece of literature that should be explored over and over again.
Okay, enough blabbing from me! I just think it is such a freedom to be able to think for oneself and be open and free to discuss opinions.
~Chelsea
What Ostriker says about the Bible is seemingly true. It can be seen as being very personal to the individual, yet shouts out to humankind. By the Bible being so mystifying, it definitely brings many viewpoints in trying to interpret the text as objectively as they deem possible. So, Ostriker does bring up a interesting point, nonetheless.
but of course, we always see the Bible from a new perception everytime we read, since as time goes by, we are constantly changing, even just a little bit. So interesting concept, and the complications and contradictions just make the big book just that much more mystical.
My preconceived beliefs of the Bible are also preventing me to truly look at it as literature. Like Ostriker said, it's as if I'm "wedded to the Bible, for better or worse". For example, one word that troubled me in her introduction was calling the Bible contradictory. At first, I thought this word meant “wrong”, but after further analysis, I realize that a contradiction is not defined in terms of right and wrong, but that it is simply a different interpretation from a different viewpoint.
I think there are many possibilities why there are so many different interpretations of the Bible. One is what Kayla said: that the way a person was raised, in a religious setting or not, gives that person a preconceived notion of the text. As was mentioned before by Valerie, we are also trying to take an ancient piece of literature and modernize it to the 21st century, something that would cause very different points of view.
Another possibility is that the authors themselves had a different view of God which is reflected in their writings. In the introduction, Ostriker says the "Hebrew Bible was composed by multiple (mostly anonymous) authors during a period of about one thousand years." This huge span of time with different events occurring would cause each of the writers to write about what was most familiar to them.
Different interpretations are the very reason we have to read and reread the Bible in order to get its full effect and is why the Bible is so amazing in that it can be turned over and over, and new ideas and discoveries are made each time.
I agree with many of the posts. that ostriker turns the bible into something that could catch anybodys attention. she gives so many contrasting words that it makes the bible appeal to anybody who decides to read it. i also agree full heartedly with addie on "how interesting it truly is to look at the Bible solely as a piece of literature". Reading the bible as literature does truly open the doors for anybody to read and see its contrasts and similarities to other types of literature.
I am probably one of the only people in class whom has not read the bible. I have little knowledge about the bible stories that children hear and learn while growing up. So saying that I am having a hard time seeing beyond the words on the page. I keep thinking about Ostriker's "turn it and turn it, for everything is in it" as the bible being a piece of art (a painting) that an Abstract Expressionist would paint, every way you look at it or turn it you could see some thing from a new perspective. However that is not what is happening to me. I just keep seeing the words and am unable to see beyond them.
Sorry this is late, but I still definitely wanted to comment on this post. So far, I have really enjoyed this book and Ostriker brings up many good points. I think she is very correct in saying that Scripture can go from one extreme to another. Through comparing even the character of God from the Old Testament to the New Testament, you will find two very opposite attitudes. God comes off as the jealous and just God in the Old Testament, yet often is seen more as the compassion and caring God in the New Testament. This is just one case, that supports this idea Ostriker is talking on. I would definitely agree with the many people, such as Kate, mentioned that the Bible is meant to be thought through many times, and every time people come up with a new concept or idea from the passage. I loved Rachel's description how she said a persons breaths the life into it and gets something individually from it.
I've grown up in the church. I know many of the stories and I have been to numerous "religious" camps, conventions, youth group meetings, and even ushered with my Great-Grandfather at the world wide Church of God Convention at Anderson for 6 years. Yet, I've never dove into The Bible and read it for what it is. The time spent in the class thus far and discussion actually scares me a bit. The idea of disciples and "chosen people" writing The Bible through God's words has disappeared almost completely. I feel that I need to read The Bible for myself and make my own understanding of what it is to me. As I believe everyone else should, if they so please. This isn't exactly along the same lines as the rest of the discussion but the realization of the reality of this piece of literature is quite daunting. It almost loses that sense of "all powerful word of God" simply because I have taken that away in my own mind. I feel that over time and better understanding that it will mean something more to me. Hopefully something stronger than before.
Ryan.
I think you're being too hard on yourself, Ian. I don't think that passage means you won't ever "get it". I think it means that no one person will ever get ALL of it.
Thanks for sharing the Rob Bell quote. I've not read any of his books, but his teaching videos are certainly thought-provoking.
To me, this passage is saying that the past repeats itself and everything is intertwined. It also means that the past is not complete, like in the movie The Never Ending Story, everything is intertwined and happens in order for the next thing to happen. The quote by William Faulkner is just like our discussion on the first day of class when we said that the bible is a living text. It consists of multiple things wrapped into one. This is significant because the bible and scripture does consist of grey areas and voids, which leaves those areas up for interpretation. I like what Kevin says when he compares the passage “the past is not dead” to the TRUTH and the fact that it never changes. To Christians, the bible is the TRUTH, and everything that is happening today has already happened in biblical times or has been prophesied to happen.
Post a Comment