365 Day Bible Day 5 (25 days late, need to speed up)
Genesis 11 - 13:4
The Tower of Babel has always fascinated me. I wondered why God was so concerned with man making a great tower or city. I guess in reading it it's the men's intentions and purposes for building it - to make a name for themselves that is the great sin. But, God confused their speech and the people spread out.
Again we have a genealogy of people living huge amounts of time. Shem, 500 years; Arphaxad, 403 years; Shelah, 403 years; Eber, 430 years; Peleg, 209 years; Reu, 207 years; Serug, 200 years; Nahor, 119 years. I know that whether or not these are actual dates are of no real consequence to the salvation that comes through Jesus Christ via Abraham, but it baffles me nonetheless. Nahor then was the father of Terah and Terah the father of Abraham.
Abraham (and his nephew Lot) were from Ur of the Chaldeans. Abraham (named Abram at the moment) married Sarai, a barren woman. Terah (who lived to 205 years old) took his sons, including Abram and his nephew Lot on a journey to Canaan, but stopped in Haran. Why?
God then speaks to Abram in chapter 12 and promises him a blessing. Abram heeds the call and took along Lot to go to Canaan when he was 75 years old. Abram kept moving, kept hearing from God and kept listening, building altars to the Lord along the way.
Abram went down to Egypt during a time of famine and had Sarai lie to everyone and say that she was his sister. Through this lie Abram wasn't killed and acquired wealth. But when the Lord inflicted serious diseases on Pharaoh and his household because of Sarai, Abram was told to get up and leave. Abram traveled some more and settled in between Bethel and Ai and called on the name of the Lord.
Matthew 5:1-26 (The Beatitudes)
The first 12 verses read like a list I need to pray daily. Teach me to be poor in spirit, to be meek, to hunger and thirst for righteousness, to be merciful, to be pure in heart, to be a peacemaker.
5:6 "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness for they will be filled". How cool is that? If you take the time to aim yourself towards righteousness God will make sure that you get there.
5:8 "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God." Lord, I need purification in my heart because I don't always see you.
The salt part suddenly scares me. If salt loses its saltiness though it's of no use. It can only be thrown out and trampled by men. That's again seeing Jesus in not a whimsy-flimsy sort of light that often he gets portrayed as.
5:20 "For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven". Again, Jesus is preaching about righteousness. What is this righteousness he is preaching?
What are we to make of Jesus' thoughts on the Law? Nothing will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Does the resurrection accomplish everything?
5:21-26 bears out what Christ says about the blessed. Blessed are the meek, the merciful and the peacemakers. Those who aren't meek, merciful or a peacemaker will suffer the judgment he talks about in these verses.
Psalm 5
Some of Psalm 5 has those difficult verses with David calling for men to be called guilty by God and for them to have a downfall and be banished from God. But as always this is tempered with a call for God to protect those who take refuge in Him.
Verse 3 stands out to me. "In the morning, O Lord, you hear my voice; in the morning I lay my requests before you and wait in expectation". This is my prayer Lord, that I learn to pray like this. Teach me to have faith enough to lay my requests at your feet and wait in expectation.
Proverbs 1:24-28
Wow, here again we have a difficult verse. Lord, teach me not to reject your calls, your discipline so that I am not so far gone that you will not answer when I do call.
Saturday, January 30, 2016
Thursday, January 28, 2016
365 Day Bible 3 & 4
Day 3 of the 365 Day Bible (still have some catching up to do).
Genesis 5 - 10
Genesis 5:1-2 reminds us that when God created man He did so in the likeness of God, the Imago Dei. Interestingly here, the NIV says the "likeness of God" and not the "image of God". I wonder what the original text states? I know there are some Christian sects that believe that we were created in the image and likeness of God, but after the Fall we lost the 'likeness' and retained the 'image'.
Adam lived 930 years. Seth lived 912 years. Enosh lived 905 years. Kenan lived 910 years. Mahalalel lived 895 years. Jared lived 962 years.
Enoch lived 365 years and unlike his ancestors, the Bible doesn't say 'and then he died'. It states 5:24 "Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away". Is this poetic license? Is it just stating the same thing in a more flowery language? Or is it something else? I don't know.
Methuselah lived 969 years. Lamech lived 777 years. Lamech was the father of Noah.
Noah was the father of Shem, Ham and Japheth.
Genesis 6 has some interesting stuff. First, "the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose" (6:2). "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days - and also afterward - when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown" (6:4). What on earth does that mean? Who were the Nephilim?
In spite of the wickedness of man, Noah alone found favor in the eyes of the Lord. Noah was righteous, blameless and walked with God. God decided to wipe out all living things on account of man who had brought violence to the earth. But, God makes a covenant with Noah (this is the first time God makes a covenant in the Old Testament).
Why does God command Noah to take two of every kind of bird in 6:20 and seven of every kind of bird in 7:2?
After the flood the first thing Noah does is to build an altar and sacrifice to God. God then states, "never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood" (8:21). That doesn't exactly paint a very good picture of man - every inclination is evil from childhood. So much for the theory that man is intrinsically good.
God then reminds us of the Imago Dei in a warning not to kill another man - 9:6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man".
God then makes his covenant with Noah never to destroy the earth by a flood and sets the rainbow as a sign to remember that He will remember the everlasting covenant between God and all the living creatures of every kind.
Noah then gets drunk and Ham dishonors him, but Japheth and Shem cover him up. Noah curses Ham (the father of Canaan) to be the slave of his brothers. Noah lived 950 years and died.
What are we to do with the ages in this passage? Are we to take literally that men lived nearly a thousand years? What can be the explanation for such longevity?
Matthew 3-4
John the Baptist bursts onto the scene in Matthew 3, calling for repentance. He prophesies about the coming Messiah who will baptize with fire and the Holy Spirit. He doesn't paint Jesus as a sort of wimpy guy either "His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire" (Matthew 3:12).
John the Baptist then, after mild protestation, baptizes Jesus. A voice from Heaven declares that Jesus is God's son.
After baptism, Jesus goes into the desert to fast 40 days. After this he is tempted by the devil three times. The thing I have always found the most interesting about this passage is that both use Scripture in their back and forth. Of course one would expect Jesus to quote Scripture, but the devil uses it as well. That's an unsettling thought.
Just like John the Baptist, Jesus begins to preach calling for repentance. Jesus then calls his first four disciples Simon-Peter, Andrew, James and John (the sons of Zebedee). Jesus then begins his ministry by preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing the sick. People flocked to him from all over and brought their sick to be healed.
Psalms 3-4
Psalm 3 is one of those Psalms that has a difficult verse in it. "Arise, O Lord! Deliver me, O my God! Strike all my enemies on the jaw; break the teeth of the wicked" (Psalms 3:7). Not exactly one of those verses that makes God seem like the great redeemer He is. It's hard to reconcile the love of God with what David is calling on God to do. But, just as we saw in Matthew 3, Jesus who is healing the sick just one chapter later is being prophesied as standing with the winnowing fork ready to store up his wheat in the barn and burn the chaff forever in an unquenchable fire.
But there are two verses that really stick out to me in Psalm 3. Psalm 3:5 "I lie down and sleep; I wake again, because the Lord sustains me". Even something so simple as waking up is worthy of praising God, because He sustains us. Psalm 3:8 "From the Lord comes deliverance. May your blessing be on your people". David, for all intents and purposes is one of the most renowned warriors in the Bible, but he sees the Lord as his deliverance, not his own strength or might.
Psalm 4 also shows David seeing God as his safety. But, the verse in Psalm 4 that strikes me the most is verse 4. "In your anger do not sin; when you are on your beds, search your hearts and be silent". Hear my prayer God, help me to search my heart so that I do not sin in anger.
Proverbs 1:10-23
Again we see a warning against sin - 1:10 "My son, if sinners entice you, do not give in to them". Again we see repentance and what it does for a man. 1:23 "If you had responded to my rebuke, I would have poured out my heart to you and made my thoughts known to you".
Genesis 5 - 10
Genesis 5:1-2 reminds us that when God created man He did so in the likeness of God, the Imago Dei. Interestingly here, the NIV says the "likeness of God" and not the "image of God". I wonder what the original text states? I know there are some Christian sects that believe that we were created in the image and likeness of God, but after the Fall we lost the 'likeness' and retained the 'image'.
Adam lived 930 years. Seth lived 912 years. Enosh lived 905 years. Kenan lived 910 years. Mahalalel lived 895 years. Jared lived 962 years.
Enoch lived 365 years and unlike his ancestors, the Bible doesn't say 'and then he died'. It states 5:24 "Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away". Is this poetic license? Is it just stating the same thing in a more flowery language? Or is it something else? I don't know.
Methuselah lived 969 years. Lamech lived 777 years. Lamech was the father of Noah.
Noah was the father of Shem, Ham and Japheth.
Genesis 6 has some interesting stuff. First, "the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose" (6:2). "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days - and also afterward - when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown" (6:4). What on earth does that mean? Who were the Nephilim?
In spite of the wickedness of man, Noah alone found favor in the eyes of the Lord. Noah was righteous, blameless and walked with God. God decided to wipe out all living things on account of man who had brought violence to the earth. But, God makes a covenant with Noah (this is the first time God makes a covenant in the Old Testament).
Why does God command Noah to take two of every kind of bird in 6:20 and seven of every kind of bird in 7:2?
After the flood the first thing Noah does is to build an altar and sacrifice to God. God then states, "never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood" (8:21). That doesn't exactly paint a very good picture of man - every inclination is evil from childhood. So much for the theory that man is intrinsically good.
God then reminds us of the Imago Dei in a warning not to kill another man - 9:6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man".
God then makes his covenant with Noah never to destroy the earth by a flood and sets the rainbow as a sign to remember that He will remember the everlasting covenant between God and all the living creatures of every kind.
Noah then gets drunk and Ham dishonors him, but Japheth and Shem cover him up. Noah curses Ham (the father of Canaan) to be the slave of his brothers. Noah lived 950 years and died.
What are we to do with the ages in this passage? Are we to take literally that men lived nearly a thousand years? What can be the explanation for such longevity?
Matthew 3-4
John the Baptist bursts onto the scene in Matthew 3, calling for repentance. He prophesies about the coming Messiah who will baptize with fire and the Holy Spirit. He doesn't paint Jesus as a sort of wimpy guy either "His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire" (Matthew 3:12).
John the Baptist then, after mild protestation, baptizes Jesus. A voice from Heaven declares that Jesus is God's son.
After baptism, Jesus goes into the desert to fast 40 days. After this he is tempted by the devil three times. The thing I have always found the most interesting about this passage is that both use Scripture in their back and forth. Of course one would expect Jesus to quote Scripture, but the devil uses it as well. That's an unsettling thought.
Just like John the Baptist, Jesus begins to preach calling for repentance. Jesus then calls his first four disciples Simon-Peter, Andrew, James and John (the sons of Zebedee). Jesus then begins his ministry by preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing the sick. People flocked to him from all over and brought their sick to be healed.
Psalms 3-4
Psalm 3 is one of those Psalms that has a difficult verse in it. "Arise, O Lord! Deliver me, O my God! Strike all my enemies on the jaw; break the teeth of the wicked" (Psalms 3:7). Not exactly one of those verses that makes God seem like the great redeemer He is. It's hard to reconcile the love of God with what David is calling on God to do. But, just as we saw in Matthew 3, Jesus who is healing the sick just one chapter later is being prophesied as standing with the winnowing fork ready to store up his wheat in the barn and burn the chaff forever in an unquenchable fire.
But there are two verses that really stick out to me in Psalm 3. Psalm 3:5 "I lie down and sleep; I wake again, because the Lord sustains me". Even something so simple as waking up is worthy of praising God, because He sustains us. Psalm 3:8 "From the Lord comes deliverance. May your blessing be on your people". David, for all intents and purposes is one of the most renowned warriors in the Bible, but he sees the Lord as his deliverance, not his own strength or might.
Psalm 4 also shows David seeing God as his safety. But, the verse in Psalm 4 that strikes me the most is verse 4. "In your anger do not sin; when you are on your beds, search your hearts and be silent". Hear my prayer God, help me to search my heart so that I do not sin in anger.
Proverbs 1:10-23
Again we see a warning against sin - 1:10 "My son, if sinners entice you, do not give in to them". Again we see repentance and what it does for a man. 1:23 "If you had responded to my rebuke, I would have poured out my heart to you and made my thoughts known to you".
Tuesday, January 26, 2016
A diary entry, ten years later
Reading and rewriting my journals has enlightened me in two ways. First, I am much less intelligent than I was. Second, I am much more streetwise than I was. I have had to look up the various fields of philosophy to give good labels when retyping my notes. Seriously, what is the difference between ethics, metaphysics and epistemology? But, when I read personal notes about ____ I look at it through the eyes of a revisionist historian, but also a stone cold sober witness to events I didn't understand as a boy-man.
Case-in-point
http://fromtheeggtotheapple.blogspot.com/2016/01/a-diary-enry.html
She didn't want to go to breakfast (something we did often). The cable guy was our mutual friend. "He finally left the apartment at two p.m (frowny face)".
Dear gods! Help me remember all education, history and philosophy while I forget my own history!
Case-in-point
http://fromtheeggtotheapple.blogspot.com/2016/01/a-diary-enry.html
She didn't want to go to breakfast (something we did often). The cable guy was our mutual friend. "He finally left the apartment at two p.m (frowny face)".
Dear gods! Help me remember all education, history and philosophy while I forget my own history!
Monday, January 25, 2016
Assessment of Picasso - Gertrude Stein
So I finished Picasso by Gertrude Stein the other day. I wrote on my Good Reads account "It's a bit of a jarring book to follow, but it reveals a lot about Picasso and Stein without revealing a lot of actual events in either of their lives. It's that which makes the read an interesting one. Unfortunately, or fortunately when I read the book I picture Kathy Bates across from me and I as Owen Wilson having Picasso explained to me. Thanks a lot Woody Allen". I gave it a three star rating because she sort of kept repeating and rambling, which I suppose was her intentional style, but it ended up being somewhat repetitive. But, I desperately envy her life so I can't criticize her work too much.
There are a couple of passages that stuck out for me in the book that I'll further explore here.
First, she had a fascinating view on whether people or generations really change. "People really do not change from one generation to another, as far back as we know history people are about the same as they were, they have had the same needs, the same desires, the same virtues and the same qualities, the same defects, indeed nothing changes from one generation to another except the things seen and the things seen make that generation, that is to say nothing changes in people from one generation to another except the way of seeing and being seen, the streets change, the way of being driven in the streets change, the buildings change, the comforts in the houses change, but the people from one generation to another do not change" (Stein, 10). This struck me as I have often wondered whether this generation (mine and the one younger than I) have changed drastically because of the onslaught of negative comments on social media and the internet. But, I have often felt that people haven't changed, only that they've been given an anonymous platform to spew their venom that they've previously spewed only in the confines of personal journals or small circles. Stein seems to have confirmed my feeling that it was the latter. But, from an aesthetics standpoint, Stein points out that the creator in the arts is similar to all the others of his generation, being sensitive in the changes around his generation and thus his art is influenced by those changes.
Second, she made a fascinating point about war. Having just come through the Great War, the War to end all Wars, undoubtedly her views were shaped by such a cataclysmic event. "It is an extraordinary thing but it is true, wars are only a means of publicising the things already accomplished, a change, a complete change, has come about, people no longer think as they were thinking but no one knows it, no one recognises it, no one really knows it except the creators. The others are too busy with the business of life, they cannot what has happened, but the creator, the real creator, does nothing, he is not concerned with the activity of existing, and as he is not active, that is to say as he is not concerned with the activity of existence he is sensitive enough to understand how people are thinking, he is not interested in knowing how they were thinking, his sensitive feeling is concerned in understanding how people live as they are living. The spirit of everybody is changed, a whole people is changed, but mostly nobody knows it and a war forces them to recognise it because during a war the appearance of everything changes very much quicker, but really the entire change has been accomplished and the war is only something which forces everybody to recognise it" (Stein, 29-30). Without claiming to be a historian of any such note, it struck me the similarities between pre-WWI and pre-9/11. There was fear and constant tension in Europe pre-WWI. Everyone was on edge in the government. The people might not have felt it in their everyday lives, but times were changing. When WWI came to an end the change was complete and everyone knew it. The war announced the change. Similarly, 9/11 and the War on Terror announced the change. There were rumblings of something terrible to happen at the dawn of the 21st century. The Lockerbie Bombing, the first attack on the World Trade Towers in 1993 and the Oklahoma City Bombing and various other terrorist events marked the rumblings of a great conflict to come. When 9/11 happened and the subsequent wars in Iraq & Afghanistan came to be, the world was changed. Americans had become more fearful, less optimistic. The times had changed and the wars in the Middle East, coupled with anti-terror measures at home announced the changes that had been going on for at least two decades in the war. The times had changed, the manner of how people think had changed and everybody was made aware of it in war.
But, not everything I took from Stein was as heavy or serious as this. Thirdly, I discovered that Stein's view of the Creator (the Artist) was what I would label as a hipster or a neo-hipster. "Sot that is the way it is, a creator is so completely contemporary that he has the appearance of being ahead of his generation and to calm himself in his daily living he wishes to live with the things in the daily life of the past, he does not wish to live as contemporary as the contemporaries who do not poignantly feel being contemporary. This sounds complicated but it is very simple" (Stein, 31-32).
I also saw in Stein a personal goal of mine as regards to writing and Picasso as my example. "Picasso was possessed by the necessity of emptying himself, of emptying himself completely, of always emptying himself, he is so full of it that all his existence is the repetition of a complete emptying, he must empty himself, he can never empty himself of being Spanish, but he can empty himself of what he has created. So every one says that he changes but really it is not that, he empties himself and the moment he has completed emptying himself he must recommence emptying himself, he fills himself up again so quickly" (Stein, 32-33). I too, am 'so full of it' (Ha), but in seriousness, I have so much energy and so many stories locked in my head and half written out, that I must find a way of emptying myself. I am not concerned that I cannot fill myself back up again quickly, but I must find the drive to empty myself completely and finish some work.
Another fascinating little line made me think hard about knowledge. "Remembered things are not things seen, therefore they are not things known" (Stein, 35). Stein was relating this to Picasso particularly, but it struck me as one who is interested in epistemology. I don't know where to go with it, but it struck me on some level.
Being as I am, currently fascinated with the surrealists and Stein having been at least connected to the surrealists, I found her differentiating between Picasso and the Surrealists fascinating. Picasso was in a period where he was not painting, but only drawing. "During the summer of 1933 he made his only surrealist drawings. Surrealism could console him a little, but not really. The surrealists still see things as every one sees them, they complicate them in a different way but the vision is that of every one else, in short the complication is the complication of the twentieth century but the vision is that of the nineteenth century. Picasso only sees something else, another reality. Complications are always easy but another vision than that of all the world is very rare. That is why geniuses are rare, to complicate things in a new way that is easy, but to see the things in a new way that is really difficult, everything prevents one, habits, schools, daily life, reason, necessities of daily life, indolence, everything prevents one, in fact there are very few geniuses in the world" (Stein, 43). Firstly, this shows what high-esteem Stein gave Picasso. While I find Picasso to be incredible, I personally find Dali to be my favorite artist. Hence, I have a bent towards surrealists. But, it's an interesting way of looking at surrealism as to say they see the world as it is and then work to complicate it.
As I said, Stein tended to repeat herself and sort of weave back and forth throughout the book, but these are the Picasso periods I gathered from her interpretation:
1. The influence of Lautrec (first visit to Paris)
2. The Blue Period (in Barcelona)
3. Rose period
4. The beginning struggle for cubism
5. African
6. Intermediary
7. Real Cubism - a rather green period (what that means I don't know)
8. Grey Period
9. Calligraphy
10. Naturalistic
Stein makes an interesting distinction between the painter and the writer - "After all the egoism of a painter is not at all the egoism of a writer, there is nothing to say about it, it is not. No." (Stein, 46). All I could think of is my own egoism and its comparison to my brothers...
She also made an interesting point about a dry period for Picasso. "Two years of not working. In a way Picasso liked it, it was one responsibility the less, it is nice not having responsibilities, it is like the soldiers during a war, a war is terrible, they said, but during a war one has no responsibility, neither for death, nor for life. So these two years were like that for Picasso, he did not work, it was not for him to decide every moment what he saw, no, poetry for him was something to be made during rather bitter meditations, but agreeably enough, in a cafe" (Stein, 46). I just thought that imagery was rather funny.
There are a couple of passages that stuck out for me in the book that I'll further explore here.
First, she had a fascinating view on whether people or generations really change. "People really do not change from one generation to another, as far back as we know history people are about the same as they were, they have had the same needs, the same desires, the same virtues and the same qualities, the same defects, indeed nothing changes from one generation to another except the things seen and the things seen make that generation, that is to say nothing changes in people from one generation to another except the way of seeing and being seen, the streets change, the way of being driven in the streets change, the buildings change, the comforts in the houses change, but the people from one generation to another do not change" (Stein, 10). This struck me as I have often wondered whether this generation (mine and the one younger than I) have changed drastically because of the onslaught of negative comments on social media and the internet. But, I have often felt that people haven't changed, only that they've been given an anonymous platform to spew their venom that they've previously spewed only in the confines of personal journals or small circles. Stein seems to have confirmed my feeling that it was the latter. But, from an aesthetics standpoint, Stein points out that the creator in the arts is similar to all the others of his generation, being sensitive in the changes around his generation and thus his art is influenced by those changes.
Second, she made a fascinating point about war. Having just come through the Great War, the War to end all Wars, undoubtedly her views were shaped by such a cataclysmic event. "It is an extraordinary thing but it is true, wars are only a means of publicising the things already accomplished, a change, a complete change, has come about, people no longer think as they were thinking but no one knows it, no one recognises it, no one really knows it except the creators. The others are too busy with the business of life, they cannot what has happened, but the creator, the real creator, does nothing, he is not concerned with the activity of existing, and as he is not active, that is to say as he is not concerned with the activity of existence he is sensitive enough to understand how people are thinking, he is not interested in knowing how they were thinking, his sensitive feeling is concerned in understanding how people live as they are living. The spirit of everybody is changed, a whole people is changed, but mostly nobody knows it and a war forces them to recognise it because during a war the appearance of everything changes very much quicker, but really the entire change has been accomplished and the war is only something which forces everybody to recognise it" (Stein, 29-30). Without claiming to be a historian of any such note, it struck me the similarities between pre-WWI and pre-9/11. There was fear and constant tension in Europe pre-WWI. Everyone was on edge in the government. The people might not have felt it in their everyday lives, but times were changing. When WWI came to an end the change was complete and everyone knew it. The war announced the change. Similarly, 9/11 and the War on Terror announced the change. There were rumblings of something terrible to happen at the dawn of the 21st century. The Lockerbie Bombing, the first attack on the World Trade Towers in 1993 and the Oklahoma City Bombing and various other terrorist events marked the rumblings of a great conflict to come. When 9/11 happened and the subsequent wars in Iraq & Afghanistan came to be, the world was changed. Americans had become more fearful, less optimistic. The times had changed and the wars in the Middle East, coupled with anti-terror measures at home announced the changes that had been going on for at least two decades in the war. The times had changed, the manner of how people think had changed and everybody was made aware of it in war.
But, not everything I took from Stein was as heavy or serious as this. Thirdly, I discovered that Stein's view of the Creator (the Artist) was what I would label as a hipster or a neo-hipster. "Sot that is the way it is, a creator is so completely contemporary that he has the appearance of being ahead of his generation and to calm himself in his daily living he wishes to live with the things in the daily life of the past, he does not wish to live as contemporary as the contemporaries who do not poignantly feel being contemporary. This sounds complicated but it is very simple" (Stein, 31-32).
I also saw in Stein a personal goal of mine as regards to writing and Picasso as my example. "Picasso was possessed by the necessity of emptying himself, of emptying himself completely, of always emptying himself, he is so full of it that all his existence is the repetition of a complete emptying, he must empty himself, he can never empty himself of being Spanish, but he can empty himself of what he has created. So every one says that he changes but really it is not that, he empties himself and the moment he has completed emptying himself he must recommence emptying himself, he fills himself up again so quickly" (Stein, 32-33). I too, am 'so full of it' (Ha), but in seriousness, I have so much energy and so many stories locked in my head and half written out, that I must find a way of emptying myself. I am not concerned that I cannot fill myself back up again quickly, but I must find the drive to empty myself completely and finish some work.
Another fascinating little line made me think hard about knowledge. "Remembered things are not things seen, therefore they are not things known" (Stein, 35). Stein was relating this to Picasso particularly, but it struck me as one who is interested in epistemology. I don't know where to go with it, but it struck me on some level.
Being as I am, currently fascinated with the surrealists and Stein having been at least connected to the surrealists, I found her differentiating between Picasso and the Surrealists fascinating. Picasso was in a period where he was not painting, but only drawing. "During the summer of 1933 he made his only surrealist drawings. Surrealism could console him a little, but not really. The surrealists still see things as every one sees them, they complicate them in a different way but the vision is that of every one else, in short the complication is the complication of the twentieth century but the vision is that of the nineteenth century. Picasso only sees something else, another reality. Complications are always easy but another vision than that of all the world is very rare. That is why geniuses are rare, to complicate things in a new way that is easy, but to see the things in a new way that is really difficult, everything prevents one, habits, schools, daily life, reason, necessities of daily life, indolence, everything prevents one, in fact there are very few geniuses in the world" (Stein, 43). Firstly, this shows what high-esteem Stein gave Picasso. While I find Picasso to be incredible, I personally find Dali to be my favorite artist. Hence, I have a bent towards surrealists. But, it's an interesting way of looking at surrealism as to say they see the world as it is and then work to complicate it.
As I said, Stein tended to repeat herself and sort of weave back and forth throughout the book, but these are the Picasso periods I gathered from her interpretation:
1. The influence of Lautrec (first visit to Paris)
2. The Blue Period (in Barcelona)
3. Rose period
4. The beginning struggle for cubism
5. African
6. Intermediary
7. Real Cubism - a rather green period (what that means I don't know)
8. Grey Period
9. Calligraphy
10. Naturalistic
Stein makes an interesting distinction between the painter and the writer - "After all the egoism of a painter is not at all the egoism of a writer, there is nothing to say about it, it is not. No." (Stein, 46). All I could think of is my own egoism and its comparison to my brothers...
She also made an interesting point about a dry period for Picasso. "Two years of not working. In a way Picasso liked it, it was one responsibility the less, it is nice not having responsibilities, it is like the soldiers during a war, a war is terrible, they said, but during a war one has no responsibility, neither for death, nor for life. So these two years were like that for Picasso, he did not work, it was not for him to decide every moment what he saw, no, poetry for him was something to be made during rather bitter meditations, but agreeably enough, in a cafe" (Stein, 46). I just thought that imagery was rather funny.
Wednesday, January 13, 2016
Assessment of Young Love
Ivan Turgenev is the first Russian author I've read in awhile. First Love is relatively short and was easy to read. I really enjoy some of the intensity of the Russian writers.
I wrote on my good reads review "Again I find myself wishing for half-stars to rate a book. First Love is excellent in that it captures what a first love is like - exquisitely torturous. Three stars is too few, but four might be too much. That said it really catches the feel of falling in love for the first time for everyone that doesn't wed their first love. My first love was truly disastrous. Luckily, it didn't have quite the same ending as Vladimir's".
In all reality, my first and second love were disastrous. My first love, L. K. lost a bet with the girls at lunch and had to ask me out to be her boyfriend. I was ecstatic. Much like Zinaida though she was only playing games. Apparently, the girls of my 7th grade class would play a rendition of truth or dare by flicking the top of a coke tab. If you were the unfortunate soul that lost by successfully flicking off the tab, you had to do some horrendous thing that was written down by all the other girls and placed in a cup. L. K. flicked the tab and drew the horrendous task of asking me out. By the end of 4th period through much frenzied note passing I had my first girlfriend and first love. By the end of 5th period I was going to her birthday party. By the end of 6th period I had been summarily dismissed. But, the following day I was asked by L.K. to admit that it was me who kicked a soccer ball through the styrafoamesque roof of the boys' locker room even though it was in fact, her crush David who had done it. David was given detention and as a result was grounded and unable to go to the aforementioned birthday party. While I eventually declined the generous offer by L.K., I considered it because it would allow me to retain my invitation. I was uninvited to the birthday party and David tried to fight me in the hall, leading to us both getting a detention.
The second love, B.S. I managed to ask to every single high school dance other than senior prom. I was asked to the senior prom - but eventually ditched at the afterparty as my date and her ex-boyfriend managed to patch things up at some point when I was getting punch. She disappeared into the after-after party and I went home. But, B.S. had said yes to every invitation, but somehow we never made it to a dance together, save for one - the Sadie Hawkins dance my Sophomore year. Though, B.S. probably didn't lose a bet to ask me to the dance, I have my suspicions that I was merely a back-up plan to the back-up plan and hopelessly available. Both could have been my Zinaida...
Suffice it to say though my first loves did not have the same strange ending as Vladimir's, I understood what Turgenev was writing and what Vladimir was feeling throughout the book. While, I might not have jumped off the wall for L.K., at 16 I very well could have jumped twice as far for B.S. There were a couple of passages though that really stood out for me in the book.
First, Turgenev's interesting take on liberty.
"'Liberty', he repeated. 'Do you know what really makes a man free?'
'What?'
'Will, your own will, and it gives power which is better than liberty. Know how to want, and you'll be free, an you'll be master too'" (Turgenev, 50).
Knowing and being able to lack or want will make you free, free from obsession, free from being indebted to others. It's a pretty good philosophy.
Second, I found a phrase slightly hysterical when young Vladimir finds out all the truth that the love of his life has fallen in love with and consummated her love with his own father. Which, I might say was a great twist, even if it was constantly building up to it from about half way in the book because I kept thinking, it's his father, no it's not, it's his father, no it's not until we know. Again, Turgenev conveys Vladimir's conflicting emotions perfectly. But this little paragraph was funny nonetheless.
"We moved back to the town. It was a long time before I could shake off the past; long before I could begin to work again. My wound healed slowly, but towards my father I actually bore no ill feeling. On the contrary, he somehow seemed even to have grown in my eyes. Let psychologists explain this contradiction if they can" (Turgenev, 97). Very funny.
I wrote on my good reads review "Again I find myself wishing for half-stars to rate a book. First Love is excellent in that it captures what a first love is like - exquisitely torturous. Three stars is too few, but four might be too much. That said it really catches the feel of falling in love for the first time for everyone that doesn't wed their first love. My first love was truly disastrous. Luckily, it didn't have quite the same ending as Vladimir's".
In all reality, my first and second love were disastrous. My first love, L. K. lost a bet with the girls at lunch and had to ask me out to be her boyfriend. I was ecstatic. Much like Zinaida though she was only playing games. Apparently, the girls of my 7th grade class would play a rendition of truth or dare by flicking the top of a coke tab. If you were the unfortunate soul that lost by successfully flicking off the tab, you had to do some horrendous thing that was written down by all the other girls and placed in a cup. L. K. flicked the tab and drew the horrendous task of asking me out. By the end of 4th period through much frenzied note passing I had my first girlfriend and first love. By the end of 5th period I was going to her birthday party. By the end of 6th period I had been summarily dismissed. But, the following day I was asked by L.K. to admit that it was me who kicked a soccer ball through the styrafoamesque roof of the boys' locker room even though it was in fact, her crush David who had done it. David was given detention and as a result was grounded and unable to go to the aforementioned birthday party. While I eventually declined the generous offer by L.K., I considered it because it would allow me to retain my invitation. I was uninvited to the birthday party and David tried to fight me in the hall, leading to us both getting a detention.
The second love, B.S. I managed to ask to every single high school dance other than senior prom. I was asked to the senior prom - but eventually ditched at the afterparty as my date and her ex-boyfriend managed to patch things up at some point when I was getting punch. She disappeared into the after-after party and I went home. But, B.S. had said yes to every invitation, but somehow we never made it to a dance together, save for one - the Sadie Hawkins dance my Sophomore year. Though, B.S. probably didn't lose a bet to ask me to the dance, I have my suspicions that I was merely a back-up plan to the back-up plan and hopelessly available. Both could have been my Zinaida...
Suffice it to say though my first loves did not have the same strange ending as Vladimir's, I understood what Turgenev was writing and what Vladimir was feeling throughout the book. While, I might not have jumped off the wall for L.K., at 16 I very well could have jumped twice as far for B.S. There were a couple of passages though that really stood out for me in the book.
First, Turgenev's interesting take on liberty.
"'Liberty', he repeated. 'Do you know what really makes a man free?'
'What?'
'Will, your own will, and it gives power which is better than liberty. Know how to want, and you'll be free, an you'll be master too'" (Turgenev, 50).
Knowing and being able to lack or want will make you free, free from obsession, free from being indebted to others. It's a pretty good philosophy.
Second, I found a phrase slightly hysterical when young Vladimir finds out all the truth that the love of his life has fallen in love with and consummated her love with his own father. Which, I might say was a great twist, even if it was constantly building up to it from about half way in the book because I kept thinking, it's his father, no it's not, it's his father, no it's not until we know. Again, Turgenev conveys Vladimir's conflicting emotions perfectly. But this little paragraph was funny nonetheless.
"We moved back to the town. It was a long time before I could shake off the past; long before I could begin to work again. My wound healed slowly, but towards my father I actually bore no ill feeling. On the contrary, he somehow seemed even to have grown in my eyes. Let psychologists explain this contradiction if they can" (Turgenev, 97). Very funny.
Tuesday, January 12, 2016
365 Day Bible Day 2
Day 2 (still playing catch-up)
Genesis 3-4
The Fall of Man in Genesis 3- Why did God make the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? Why did God make the Tree of Life? Genesis 3 offers us the first look of the Problem of Evil in Scriptures. Why was the serpent crafty? Why did he defy God? Why did Eve mis-remember or lie about the tree in the middle of the garden and embellish what God had said? Eve, even in that innocent state at the least erred, if not fibbed. Who is to blame for the fall of man?
Was it God for setting Adam and Eve up to fail? Was it the serpent for seducing Eve? Was it Eve for eating the apple and seducing Adam? Was it Adam to succumbing to Eve and eating the apple? It just occurred to me, though I've probably thought of it before or so I'm not mis-remembering or fibbing, it's probably more accurate to state that it has been pointed out to me before that the problem of free will and the problem of evil are intricately related.
Why did God create the universe in the way He did? We may posit guesses, theories and plausible scenarios, but our answers will only reach probability standards and internally consistency. The fact of the matter is that the world is as it is because God created it as such (allowing a transcendental argument that presupposes that the Christian God did create the world, that I have no personal qualms with accepting on various levels that I'll not go into at the moment). But, as for the creation of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (whether this is a literal or metaphorical creation, a topic for another discussion) demands that God created the world as such to involve Free Will. Thus, sin, though not inevitable, is at least possible in the world that God created. The Problem of Evil comes about because we ask who is the author of evil. In a world that is created by God where evil is at least possible don't we have to accept that God is the ultimate author of evil? I tend to lean towards St. Augustine's way of dealing with the existence of evil as I sort of had a eureka moment when I learned of his theory. Evil is not something that exists independently and is really only the diminishing of the good. Thus, God who cannot be diminished at all can never be evil. Thus, we can rule God out as the author of evil.
But, we needn't get too deep into this as it really doesn't concern Genesis 3 only that it absolves God from any guilt in the scenario. God shows whose to blame as he doles out punishment. The serpent is cursed. The woman has her pain in childbearing greatly increased and Adam and the ground is cursed because of his role in the event.
Even after punishment though God takes care of Adam & Eve making them garments of skin.
Cain and Abel are then born to Adam and Eve in exile from the Garden. Cain offered "some" of his fruits and Abel offered "fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock". The Lord looked on Abel with favor for his offering, but not on Cain. Cain became angry. Then God says something interesting, combining a comforting and a warning - "If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it".
That verse, 4:7 strikes some fear in me. I can vividly picture sin crouching at my door seeking to have me. Lord, help me master it.
Cain kills Abel and is cursed by God, but once again God even punishment doesn't totally destroy Cain, marking him so that nobody kills him.
This is where I start to get intrigued and thinking about the whole Adam & Eve and Cain & Abel and why is Cain scared stating, "I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me". If Adam & Eve are the first people and Cain and Abel their first children, and now that Abel is dead, who is Cain afraid of coming across when he is wandering? Who is his wife that he lay with in the next verse? Now I guess is as good of a place as any for me to posit my working and probably incredibly inaccurate thoughts on Creation, Adam & Eve and who the heck Cain is scared of.
First, with regard to the Genesis account of Creation and its literal/metaphorical interpretation. Actually, let's back up a second before I go into this. Firstly, anything and everything in Scriptures is relevant to our daily walk with God. But, if it doesn't deny the salvation through Jesus Christ or anything heretical about the nature of God, I think a debate can be had on certain things - one of which is Creation. Secondly, as long as there is no disagreement on how one is redeemed, which is through Jesus Christ and acceptance of Him as one's Lord and Savior, and on the Triune God of Christianity being the sole God, one can be called a Christian. I am sure that when I get to Heaven I will be surprised who I see and who I don't see. God's redemptive powers are greater than my conception of them. Lastly, I do not think it to be edifying the faithful or a good look to the un-believing for Christians to come to blows, literal or metaphorical about things related to faith. Where there is disagreement, let there be discussion unless discussion leads to heresy or disharmony. If there are in those rare spots places where Christians can disagree on points of theology that are not related to Christ, his redeeming ways or on the Trinity then let us simply do good works to show our faith. But when it comes to Creation, I am not a literalist. I don't think we can take the Biblical account of Genesis 1-2 and turn it into a scientific treatise because that is not what it was intended to be.
As for my take on Creation, I see no reason why a Darwinian account of evolution is incompatible with a Scriptural worldview. I see this because I don't think the Bible is a scientific textbook. Now, Darwinian evolution has the power to describe the process of how the earth came into being, but not the why or the intent of creation. I believe that when God set into motion the events of creation that would eventually lead to this point and to the final point in history, He did so in the full knowledge of the fall of man and that his creation act included the two seminal points in redeeming man - the crucifixion/resurrection of Jesus Christ and the second coming. They were woven into the fabric of creation because he had foreknowledge that man would fall and in the ultimate act of love and sacrifice he chose to create and redeem nonetheless. Why did God create in such a way that included Free Will? Again, this is one of those questions we can only posit theories to that approximate internal consistency because we cannot know the full mind of God.
Now, we come to Adam and Eve and some of the differences between Genesis 1 and 2. I think at some point in the distant past, when man was emerging out of East Africa, God chose, much in the way he chose Abraham, a certain man and placed him in the Garden to fulfill the purpose which God had set for man at the onset of creation - "to fill the earth and subdue it, to rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground" (Genesis 1:28). Through Adam naming the creatures of the garden, God gave him dominion over those in the garden. While I don't take creation as literal, I take the Garden of Eden and Adam as literal, as well as Eve being formed for Adam by God specifically as literal, historical events.
Now comes the question of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life and the serpent. This I vacillate back and forth on. On the one hand, if God set up a guard at the entrance to the Garden so that Adam & Eve couldn't return to the garden it would suggest that both trees are literal. But, on the other hand, the sin/fall of man could very well have been Adam & Eve exercising their free will in a way that resulted in sin and the story could be metaphorical and just Adam & Eve choosing to live their way instead of God's way. I'm not sure - to be honest, I'm not really sure about any of this; it's just my personal thoughts.
Cain & Abel is most definitely now entering a literal phase. I think that once Adam & Eve have been banished from paradise they are aware of other people throughout their little corner of the world. Cain being banished from his home territory would mean coming across other groups of humans who might not be overly receptive to someone wandering into their territory where they hunt and gather. Why do I think that Adam & Eve and their sons knew of other human beings in the vicinity of them? The wife of Cain, without the Biblical mention of Adam & Eve having a daughter makes me think that Cain (and probably Abel) acquired a wife from another band of humans in the general vicinity to where Adam & Eve were living. But, this could all be wrong. Lord, I pray for two things. First, that I don't get to caught up in intellectualizing your Word and thus, not gleaning the eternal truths from it by drowning out your voice. Second, that I don't lead myself or anyone else astray from you in thinking or writing these things.
To finish up today's reading in Genesis I have two things that puzzle me
1) Lamech. What is Lamech saying when he makes his declaration to his two wives?
2) Adam & Eve's third son Seth has a son called Enosh: "At that time men began to call on the name of the Lord". What does that mean? The Lord spoke to Adam & Eve, and to Cain (presumably to Abel). But had the fall caused enough rift that the Lord was pulling back and so the roles reversed to where man was beginning to call on the name of the Lord instead of the other way around?
Matthew 3
John the Baptist was baptizing and preaching in the desert and drawing crowds. He chastised the Pharisees and the Sadducees who seemed to be relying on their heritage as descendants of Abraham for salvation. "Produce fruit in keeping with repentance" (3:8) he warned them, continuing "The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire" (3:10).
Lord, hear my prayer - Help me to produce fruit in keeping with repentance. I repent of my sins and yet I am bearing no fruit. I continue to go to my sins often, even after repenting. I repent again. Help me to bear fruit.
The first words of Jesus in the New Testament come from Matthew 3:15 "Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness". While the formation of the Scriptures as it is now may not be chronological in the order that events happened or were even recorded, I find it interesting to English readers of the Scriptures that Jesus' first words are essentially 'let's do it to fulfill all righteousness'. With that John the Baptist baptizes Jesus and God declares from Heaven who Jesus is - "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased". Righteousness pleases God.
Psalm 2
2:11 - "Serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with trembling"
2:12b - "Blessed are all who take refuge in him"
Lord, may I serve you and rejoice you and take refuge in you.
Proverbs 1:7-9
1:7 "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline."
Lord, let this be yet another beginning of knowledge. Teach me not to despise your discipline. Hear my prayer Lord.
Genesis 3-4
The Fall of Man in Genesis 3- Why did God make the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? Why did God make the Tree of Life? Genesis 3 offers us the first look of the Problem of Evil in Scriptures. Why was the serpent crafty? Why did he defy God? Why did Eve mis-remember or lie about the tree in the middle of the garden and embellish what God had said? Eve, even in that innocent state at the least erred, if not fibbed. Who is to blame for the fall of man?
Was it God for setting Adam and Eve up to fail? Was it the serpent for seducing Eve? Was it Eve for eating the apple and seducing Adam? Was it Adam to succumbing to Eve and eating the apple? It just occurred to me, though I've probably thought of it before or so I'm not mis-remembering or fibbing, it's probably more accurate to state that it has been pointed out to me before that the problem of free will and the problem of evil are intricately related.
Why did God create the universe in the way He did? We may posit guesses, theories and plausible scenarios, but our answers will only reach probability standards and internally consistency. The fact of the matter is that the world is as it is because God created it as such (allowing a transcendental argument that presupposes that the Christian God did create the world, that I have no personal qualms with accepting on various levels that I'll not go into at the moment). But, as for the creation of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (whether this is a literal or metaphorical creation, a topic for another discussion) demands that God created the world as such to involve Free Will. Thus, sin, though not inevitable, is at least possible in the world that God created. The Problem of Evil comes about because we ask who is the author of evil. In a world that is created by God where evil is at least possible don't we have to accept that God is the ultimate author of evil? I tend to lean towards St. Augustine's way of dealing with the existence of evil as I sort of had a eureka moment when I learned of his theory. Evil is not something that exists independently and is really only the diminishing of the good. Thus, God who cannot be diminished at all can never be evil. Thus, we can rule God out as the author of evil.
But, we needn't get too deep into this as it really doesn't concern Genesis 3 only that it absolves God from any guilt in the scenario. God shows whose to blame as he doles out punishment. The serpent is cursed. The woman has her pain in childbearing greatly increased and Adam and the ground is cursed because of his role in the event.
Even after punishment though God takes care of Adam & Eve making them garments of skin.
Cain and Abel are then born to Adam and Eve in exile from the Garden. Cain offered "some" of his fruits and Abel offered "fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock". The Lord looked on Abel with favor for his offering, but not on Cain. Cain became angry. Then God says something interesting, combining a comforting and a warning - "If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it".
That verse, 4:7 strikes some fear in me. I can vividly picture sin crouching at my door seeking to have me. Lord, help me master it.
Cain kills Abel and is cursed by God, but once again God even punishment doesn't totally destroy Cain, marking him so that nobody kills him.
This is where I start to get intrigued and thinking about the whole Adam & Eve and Cain & Abel and why is Cain scared stating, "I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me". If Adam & Eve are the first people and Cain and Abel their first children, and now that Abel is dead, who is Cain afraid of coming across when he is wandering? Who is his wife that he lay with in the next verse? Now I guess is as good of a place as any for me to posit my working and probably incredibly inaccurate thoughts on Creation, Adam & Eve and who the heck Cain is scared of.
First, with regard to the Genesis account of Creation and its literal/metaphorical interpretation. Actually, let's back up a second before I go into this. Firstly, anything and everything in Scriptures is relevant to our daily walk with God. But, if it doesn't deny the salvation through Jesus Christ or anything heretical about the nature of God, I think a debate can be had on certain things - one of which is Creation. Secondly, as long as there is no disagreement on how one is redeemed, which is through Jesus Christ and acceptance of Him as one's Lord and Savior, and on the Triune God of Christianity being the sole God, one can be called a Christian. I am sure that when I get to Heaven I will be surprised who I see and who I don't see. God's redemptive powers are greater than my conception of them. Lastly, I do not think it to be edifying the faithful or a good look to the un-believing for Christians to come to blows, literal or metaphorical about things related to faith. Where there is disagreement, let there be discussion unless discussion leads to heresy or disharmony. If there are in those rare spots places where Christians can disagree on points of theology that are not related to Christ, his redeeming ways or on the Trinity then let us simply do good works to show our faith. But when it comes to Creation, I am not a literalist. I don't think we can take the Biblical account of Genesis 1-2 and turn it into a scientific treatise because that is not what it was intended to be.
As for my take on Creation, I see no reason why a Darwinian account of evolution is incompatible with a Scriptural worldview. I see this because I don't think the Bible is a scientific textbook. Now, Darwinian evolution has the power to describe the process of how the earth came into being, but not the why or the intent of creation. I believe that when God set into motion the events of creation that would eventually lead to this point and to the final point in history, He did so in the full knowledge of the fall of man and that his creation act included the two seminal points in redeeming man - the crucifixion/resurrection of Jesus Christ and the second coming. They were woven into the fabric of creation because he had foreknowledge that man would fall and in the ultimate act of love and sacrifice he chose to create and redeem nonetheless. Why did God create in such a way that included Free Will? Again, this is one of those questions we can only posit theories to that approximate internal consistency because we cannot know the full mind of God.
Now, we come to Adam and Eve and some of the differences between Genesis 1 and 2. I think at some point in the distant past, when man was emerging out of East Africa, God chose, much in the way he chose Abraham, a certain man and placed him in the Garden to fulfill the purpose which God had set for man at the onset of creation - "to fill the earth and subdue it, to rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground" (Genesis 1:28). Through Adam naming the creatures of the garden, God gave him dominion over those in the garden. While I don't take creation as literal, I take the Garden of Eden and Adam as literal, as well as Eve being formed for Adam by God specifically as literal, historical events.
Now comes the question of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life and the serpent. This I vacillate back and forth on. On the one hand, if God set up a guard at the entrance to the Garden so that Adam & Eve couldn't return to the garden it would suggest that both trees are literal. But, on the other hand, the sin/fall of man could very well have been Adam & Eve exercising their free will in a way that resulted in sin and the story could be metaphorical and just Adam & Eve choosing to live their way instead of God's way. I'm not sure - to be honest, I'm not really sure about any of this; it's just my personal thoughts.
Cain & Abel is most definitely now entering a literal phase. I think that once Adam & Eve have been banished from paradise they are aware of other people throughout their little corner of the world. Cain being banished from his home territory would mean coming across other groups of humans who might not be overly receptive to someone wandering into their territory where they hunt and gather. Why do I think that Adam & Eve and their sons knew of other human beings in the vicinity of them? The wife of Cain, without the Biblical mention of Adam & Eve having a daughter makes me think that Cain (and probably Abel) acquired a wife from another band of humans in the general vicinity to where Adam & Eve were living. But, this could all be wrong. Lord, I pray for two things. First, that I don't get to caught up in intellectualizing your Word and thus, not gleaning the eternal truths from it by drowning out your voice. Second, that I don't lead myself or anyone else astray from you in thinking or writing these things.
To finish up today's reading in Genesis I have two things that puzzle me
1) Lamech. What is Lamech saying when he makes his declaration to his two wives?
2) Adam & Eve's third son Seth has a son called Enosh: "At that time men began to call on the name of the Lord". What does that mean? The Lord spoke to Adam & Eve, and to Cain (presumably to Abel). But had the fall caused enough rift that the Lord was pulling back and so the roles reversed to where man was beginning to call on the name of the Lord instead of the other way around?
Matthew 3
John the Baptist was baptizing and preaching in the desert and drawing crowds. He chastised the Pharisees and the Sadducees who seemed to be relying on their heritage as descendants of Abraham for salvation. "Produce fruit in keeping with repentance" (3:8) he warned them, continuing "The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire" (3:10).
Lord, hear my prayer - Help me to produce fruit in keeping with repentance. I repent of my sins and yet I am bearing no fruit. I continue to go to my sins often, even after repenting. I repent again. Help me to bear fruit.
The first words of Jesus in the New Testament come from Matthew 3:15 "Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness". While the formation of the Scriptures as it is now may not be chronological in the order that events happened or were even recorded, I find it interesting to English readers of the Scriptures that Jesus' first words are essentially 'let's do it to fulfill all righteousness'. With that John the Baptist baptizes Jesus and God declares from Heaven who Jesus is - "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased". Righteousness pleases God.
Psalm 2
2:11 - "Serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with trembling"
2:12b - "Blessed are all who take refuge in him"
Lord, may I serve you and rejoice you and take refuge in you.
Proverbs 1:7-9
1:7 "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline."
Lord, let this be yet another beginning of knowledge. Teach me not to despise your discipline. Hear my prayer Lord.
365 Day Bible Day 1
Day 1 of the 365 day Bible reading (of course it's Day 12 of the year, but I'm a procrastinator).
Genesis 1-2
When God creates the sea creatures and the birds, he blesses them and says "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth". When God creates the land creatures he says its good. When he creates man "in our image" he does so to "let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground". He gave man a duty and a purpose in the act of creation.
1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them". Why does the author repeat God created man three times in a single phrase? What is the significance of the repetition?
After creating man for a purpose, he blesses them and gives them every seed-bearing plant as food.
God rested on the seventh day and made it holy - he set it apart for rest.
The creation of man coincided with him placing man in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.
God named the "day" and the "night", the "sky", the "land" and the "seas, but Adam named all the animals. Is this significant? I remember vaguely from a college class that naming something in Hebrew culture gave ownership or stewardship, but is that true? I mean, it would make sense as man was created to work and subdue the earth.
Matthew 1-2
Mary was found to be pregnant with Jesus before being married by the Holy Spirit. Is this the first time that the Holy Spirit is mentioned specifically in the Bible?
Joseph became aware of this and was going to break it off with Mary, but an angel came to him and explained the situation. That would be an odd one to experience.
Jesus was born in Bethlehem and the Magi came to see him. They stopped in Jerusalem to find where the one who was to be the king of the Jews was born. They avoided going back through Jerusalem though because of King Herod.
Joseph is again visited by an angel, telling him to take Mary and Jesus to Egypt because King Herod was going to try and kill Jesus. Joseph is once again visited by an angel and told that it was safe to return to Israel now that King Herod was dead.
Psalm 1
1:1-2 "Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers. But his delight is in the law of the Lord and on his law he meditates day and night". This is my prayer Lord, help me to delight in your law and meditate on it day and night.
Proverbs 1:1-6
The purpose of the Proverbs:
-to attain wisdom and discipline
-to understand words of insight
-to acquire a disciplined and prudent life
-to do what is right and just and fair
I need the Proverbs probably more than most things right now. I need to acquire a disciplined and prudent life. Help me Lord to achieve this end.
Genesis 1-2
When God creates the sea creatures and the birds, he blesses them and says "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth". When God creates the land creatures he says its good. When he creates man "in our image" he does so to "let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground". He gave man a duty and a purpose in the act of creation.
1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them". Why does the author repeat God created man three times in a single phrase? What is the significance of the repetition?
After creating man for a purpose, he blesses them and gives them every seed-bearing plant as food.
God rested on the seventh day and made it holy - he set it apart for rest.
The creation of man coincided with him placing man in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.
God named the "day" and the "night", the "sky", the "land" and the "seas, but Adam named all the animals. Is this significant? I remember vaguely from a college class that naming something in Hebrew culture gave ownership or stewardship, but is that true? I mean, it would make sense as man was created to work and subdue the earth.
Matthew 1-2
Mary was found to be pregnant with Jesus before being married by the Holy Spirit. Is this the first time that the Holy Spirit is mentioned specifically in the Bible?
Joseph became aware of this and was going to break it off with Mary, but an angel came to him and explained the situation. That would be an odd one to experience.
Jesus was born in Bethlehem and the Magi came to see him. They stopped in Jerusalem to find where the one who was to be the king of the Jews was born. They avoided going back through Jerusalem though because of King Herod.
Joseph is again visited by an angel, telling him to take Mary and Jesus to Egypt because King Herod was going to try and kill Jesus. Joseph is once again visited by an angel and told that it was safe to return to Israel now that King Herod was dead.
Psalm 1
1:1-2 "Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers. But his delight is in the law of the Lord and on his law he meditates day and night". This is my prayer Lord, help me to delight in your law and meditate on it day and night.
Proverbs 1:1-6
The purpose of the Proverbs:
-to attain wisdom and discipline
-to understand words of insight
-to acquire a disciplined and prudent life
-to do what is right and just and fair
I need the Proverbs probably more than most things right now. I need to acquire a disciplined and prudent life. Help me Lord to achieve this end.
Sunday, January 10, 2016
Exercises in Style
Raymond Queneau is fast becoming a favorite author of mine. Exercises in Style is one of those books that made me laugh to myself with noone around. If a book can produce any kind of emotion to me, whether crying or laughing, I laud it as a seminal work of art because I'm truly an unfeeling person.
I'll admit though, Exercises in Style took me a bit longer to read because there are some tedious parts. It is the same story, over and over again and that gets a bit boring, but some of the exercises are so profoundly hilarious that it resonates beyond belief. Of course, I read the translated version because my French is non-existent at this point, but I hope to some day read it in the original language to a satisfactory understanding. That said, the monumental effort to translate it impressed me almost as much as Queneau's work itself.
The story itself is innocuous and insignificant, but through his styles it becomes incredible. Sometimes the long-necked man is the villain; sometimes he is sympathetic. That alone should show the incredible skill of Queneau in the work, but I pinched my bottom and forced myself to read on and deeper. I will say, the probability, the haiku and the philosophic were some of my favorites. Some of the jumbled writing I didn't fully understand, but through effort and having read the story a hundred times or more it made sense. Some of the exercises written by other authors read like college assignments and others read like full blown doctoral theses. It's probably not going to be everybody's cup of tea, but it's worth a read. I enjoyed it immensely.
I'll admit though, Exercises in Style took me a bit longer to read because there are some tedious parts. It is the same story, over and over again and that gets a bit boring, but some of the exercises are so profoundly hilarious that it resonates beyond belief. Of course, I read the translated version because my French is non-existent at this point, but I hope to some day read it in the original language to a satisfactory understanding. That said, the monumental effort to translate it impressed me almost as much as Queneau's work itself.
The story itself is innocuous and insignificant, but through his styles it becomes incredible. Sometimes the long-necked man is the villain; sometimes he is sympathetic. That alone should show the incredible skill of Queneau in the work, but I pinched my bottom and forced myself to read on and deeper. I will say, the probability, the haiku and the philosophic were some of my favorites. Some of the jumbled writing I didn't fully understand, but through effort and having read the story a hundred times or more it made sense. Some of the exercises written by other authors read like college assignments and others read like full blown doctoral theses. It's probably not going to be everybody's cup of tea, but it's worth a read. I enjoyed it immensely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)