This will be short and to the point. It is late, and I am tired. But I wanted to read a bit before going to bed.
The "Ten Commandments" are said to be the most famous bit of legislation in the world. They are ten laws or requirements of man by God in order to stay in a good relationship with God. Notice I am using a capital G to indicate the one god as expressed in both Jewish and Christian tradition.
But if you read the Ten Commandments very carefully you will see a change in narration perspective between the first two commandments and the next eight commandments.
The opening of the commandments appears to be God directly addressing the people. Notice the use of first person as the narrator. "I am the LORD your God... ...no other gods before me. I the Lord your God... ...those who reject me... ...love me and keep my commandments."
Those are from the first two commandments. By the third commandment, we have a shift to third person. We go from I and me to His and He representing God.
It would seem that God spoke the first two commandments directly to the Israelites, which caused them great fear and concern, and the rest most likely were delivered to them by Moses.
Either the first two were deemed by God to be so important He wasn't going to risk them being misspoken or misunderstood by having Moses relay them, or He wanted the added emphasis of speaking them Himself to embed them in the minds of the people who heard Him.
Now this brings us to another point that this author does not explore, but is always in the front of my brain. Did God, in fact, ever speak directly to humans, and if He did, does he still do so now?
I have always thought that one could communicated directly with God the Father, but only through the mystery of the mind. It would appear that in this incident the people heard from God not through the workings of their minds, but through actual auditory sounds received by their ears. The scriptures, in fact say, that the sound of God speaking to them was terrifying. They even told Moses that he should be the one to communicate with God because if they listened to God they would die (Exodus 20:19 KJV).
If God did speak to the Israelites, was there a reason why He chose not to at some point? Or does He still?
I wouldn't claim to be worthy of a direct communication with God, but I'd dare say this group of Israelites weren't either.
Am I missing something here? Is there an evolution in the way God communicates with His creation? Or is there an evolution in what we will believe as fact verses fantasy. Are some of the stories within the ancient writings mere collections of even more ancient oral traditions from different traditions?
Were the ancient writings contrived over time to set the stage for explaining the favored positioning of a peoples who would dare to call themselves "God's Chosen?" Will we, or can we, ever know?
Friday, September 26, 2008
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Hold on to your socks
In this blog, I may shake you a little bit if you have held Christian or Jewish principles dear. I don't know at this point who all is following, but if it is only the 5 I invited, knowing who you are I need to assure you my faith is still intact. Nothing has moved me. But some very interesting concepts have been presented in this book I am reading.
When bibliologists study the scriptures they bring into the research questions that most would not consider, or most likely, even have come to mind.
Exodus, the second book written supposedly by Moses, is a continuation of the history of this nation of God's chosen people, as well as the beginnings of the laws of God being handed to man. Most famous, and first in line, are the Ten Commandments.
Much has been written about, preached about, debated about and held in contempt of these 10 laws. They were, according to bible tradition and interpretation, laws that God inscribed on stone that was left in the care of Moses while in the wilderness with the Israelites. You know the story.
The first commandment has some bibliologists going in a direction that might might twist your knickers, so hold on.
"Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Exodus 20:3, KJV. Notice the small g in gods. A small and seemingly insignificant thing. But religions seem to be divided on similar small and insignificant things. Also notice the wording of this first and greatest commandment (according to Jesus Himself).
It does NOT say, "Thou shalt have no other gods." But it seems to be implying that if you do have other gods, they will be secondary to me, the principal god. Or, as we now refer to Him, God.
And in fact, if this happens to be true, it fits much better with the beliefs of the day. Peoples of known cultures and religions at that time believed in many gods. And this god, was not outright discounting them, but advising these, His chosen people, that He would be first in their worship and allegiance.
This is known as monolatry. You can look it up. It seems from all of the ancient writings that Moses and those who followed him were not monotheistic, but were instead monolatry. That is, acknowledging many gods, worshipping only one.
This in and of itself is not earth shattering, at least to me. But is when coupled with the knowledge that the god of the bible was of two models. First was a god that was not omnipresent. He had to appear to most of the most important figures in the early Old Testament. In clearer language, He was not always with them, but "came" to them. Later we find god everywhere all the time, omnipresent. We have on face value two different gods. At a known point in the scriptures we have a turning point in who god is. The scriptures even call Him different names.
These two concepts, a god who is not omnipresent, and a people who are not monotheistic, staggers those of us raised in the traditional Christian thought pattern. I believe that these two concepts would not make for easy teaching, and would most likely cause great confusion and maybe much disrespect for the scriptures.
For me, it cements some ideas I have carried for many years. And it actually strengthens my faith and clears my head.
Hope I haven't impacted your thought process negatively.
When bibliologists study the scriptures they bring into the research questions that most would not consider, or most likely, even have come to mind.
Exodus, the second book written supposedly by Moses, is a continuation of the history of this nation of God's chosen people, as well as the beginnings of the laws of God being handed to man. Most famous, and first in line, are the Ten Commandments.
Much has been written about, preached about, debated about and held in contempt of these 10 laws. They were, according to bible tradition and interpretation, laws that God inscribed on stone that was left in the care of Moses while in the wilderness with the Israelites. You know the story.
The first commandment has some bibliologists going in a direction that might might twist your knickers, so hold on.
"Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Exodus 20:3, KJV. Notice the small g in gods. A small and seemingly insignificant thing. But religions seem to be divided on similar small and insignificant things. Also notice the wording of this first and greatest commandment (according to Jesus Himself).
It does NOT say, "Thou shalt have no other gods." But it seems to be implying that if you do have other gods, they will be secondary to me, the principal god. Or, as we now refer to Him, God.
And in fact, if this happens to be true, it fits much better with the beliefs of the day. Peoples of known cultures and religions at that time believed in many gods. And this god, was not outright discounting them, but advising these, His chosen people, that He would be first in their worship and allegiance.
This is known as monolatry. You can look it up. It seems from all of the ancient writings that Moses and those who followed him were not monotheistic, but were instead monolatry. That is, acknowledging many gods, worshipping only one.
This in and of itself is not earth shattering, at least to me. But is when coupled with the knowledge that the god of the bible was of two models. First was a god that was not omnipresent. He had to appear to most of the most important figures in the early Old Testament. In clearer language, He was not always with them, but "came" to them. Later we find god everywhere all the time, omnipresent. We have on face value two different gods. At a known point in the scriptures we have a turning point in who god is. The scriptures even call Him different names.
These two concepts, a god who is not omnipresent, and a people who are not monotheistic, staggers those of us raised in the traditional Christian thought pattern. I believe that these two concepts would not make for easy teaching, and would most likely cause great confusion and maybe much disrespect for the scriptures.
For me, it cements some ideas I have carried for many years. And it actually strengthens my faith and clears my head.
Hope I haven't impacted your thought process negatively.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Presupposition
Some of the key pieces you learn if you study authorship are the elements that a good author must know. First he or she must know their topic. Whether they know it straight on or obliquely will determine the way they approach the topic, of course. They must also know, or make some assumptions about, their intended audience. A language must be selected. A form must be adopted and strictly adhered to. And there are other things that come into play depending on the type of writing.
One element that all authors include in their writing is presupposition. That is a subset of knowing or guessing about their intended audience.
In examining the Bible's old testament for a while now I have reached this conclusion tentatively.
It seems the authors and compilers of the ancient writings leaned towards the belief that those who would read or hear the words would be skeptical at best and seriously distrust the words at the worse.
I find that many of the events, stories, and heroes of the ancient writings are elaborately told as if the author wanted to put everything into the telling to make it more believable. Just as people do today when telling or writing. They embellish, exaggerate or inflate the truth to make it more real and more amazing than it was.
It is almost as if the ancient authors envisioned a very disbelieving readership. And secondary to that, it seems to me that they also anticipated a simple minded and perhaps even gullible audience.
I grew up hearing the phrase "a simple faith." It has been said of my mother that she lived and practiced "a simple faith." I wonder in what context and connotation the word simple was being used? Simple, as in uncomplicated and unencumbered with supporting truths, or simple as in unlearned and unscholarly?
I know from working with special needs people that some who are in our view mentally challenged seem to live in a world that jumps from sublime happiness because they really have fewer cares than most of us carry, and complete frustration because they don't understand that many things in life take the care and planning of logical thinking.
So I wonder if the Bible is best taken without logic? But if it is, you shouldn't think too long on whether it is or not! Don't approach topics that are best understood without logic logically. Is that logical?
One element that all authors include in their writing is presupposition. That is a subset of knowing or guessing about their intended audience.
In examining the Bible's old testament for a while now I have reached this conclusion tentatively.
It seems the authors and compilers of the ancient writings leaned towards the belief that those who would read or hear the words would be skeptical at best and seriously distrust the words at the worse.
I find that many of the events, stories, and heroes of the ancient writings are elaborately told as if the author wanted to put everything into the telling to make it more believable. Just as people do today when telling or writing. They embellish, exaggerate or inflate the truth to make it more real and more amazing than it was.
It is almost as if the ancient authors envisioned a very disbelieving readership. And secondary to that, it seems to me that they also anticipated a simple minded and perhaps even gullible audience.
I grew up hearing the phrase "a simple faith." It has been said of my mother that she lived and practiced "a simple faith." I wonder in what context and connotation the word simple was being used? Simple, as in uncomplicated and unencumbered with supporting truths, or simple as in unlearned and unscholarly?
I know from working with special needs people that some who are in our view mentally challenged seem to live in a world that jumps from sublime happiness because they really have fewer cares than most of us carry, and complete frustration because they don't understand that many things in life take the care and planning of logical thinking.
So I wonder if the Bible is best taken without logic? But if it is, you shouldn't think too long on whether it is or not! Don't approach topics that are best understood without logic logically. Is that logical?
Friday, September 19, 2008
Lack of evidence = misrepresentation and mistrial?
In spite of an enormous emphasis placed and significant space given within the Bible concerning the Israelites migration in to Egypt, along with the accompanying life story of Joseph of adopted royal linage, the plagues, expulsion and pursuit into the "wilderness" resulting in the loss of the Pharaoh's very expansive and expensive army; ancient writings experts and archeologist's have found no collaborating evidence that the Israelites were ever in Egypt or in the "wilderness."
Scientific research and geographical evidence has not found any way to explain the crossing of the Red, or Reed, Sea, nor the loss of an entire army in same.
So. Was it all fabrication? Well, James Kugel seems to believe it might have been "cut from different pieces of fabric" as he calls it. The story may have some elements of truth in isolated and unrelated events in the past of the author(s) life but were somehow pulled together to create a peoples who desperately needed a historical record that was different than it was in reality. All in order to explain why they were "God's chosen."
Modern historians will agree that even short term history, as in that of the United States, has been written from a very white man's point of view. Women, Blacks and Indians, the other major components of this country's history, have been largely ignored, misrepresented or downplayed.
Even with the checks and balances of the 18th and 19th century historians we have a distinctly distorted view of our country's early struggles in emergence. Take those parameters back 3,000 years and imagine the chaos you would have at the hands of an extremely few would could read and write.
Mind boggling.
Scientific research and geographical evidence has not found any way to explain the crossing of the Red, or Reed, Sea, nor the loss of an entire army in same.
So. Was it all fabrication? Well, James Kugel seems to believe it might have been "cut from different pieces of fabric" as he calls it. The story may have some elements of truth in isolated and unrelated events in the past of the author(s) life but were somehow pulled together to create a peoples who desperately needed a historical record that was different than it was in reality. All in order to explain why they were "God's chosen."
Modern historians will agree that even short term history, as in that of the United States, has been written from a very white man's point of view. Women, Blacks and Indians, the other major components of this country's history, have been largely ignored, misrepresented or downplayed.
Even with the checks and balances of the 18th and 19th century historians we have a distinctly distorted view of our country's early struggles in emergence. Take those parameters back 3,000 years and imagine the chaos you would have at the hands of an extremely few would could read and write.
Mind boggling.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Dates
Dates have profound effects on us. In many parts of the world, certain dates are thought to hold power to render actions on that date either successful or doomed to failure. In this society in which we live, we too are emotionally tied to certain dates. Our birthday is probably the first date that becomes significant to us. When we enter school and begin to see what historians have decided are important dates we add some of them to our list of significance as well. July 4th is one we observe in this country. Less as we become more integrated. Christmas is one that takes on many different meanings to people, but the date always seems to be held in some kind of sanctity. At least I don't hear of many who celebrate Christmas on a different date.
September 11 has become to this nation a date of significance. Prior to 2001, however, it was already of significance to my sister. It is her birthday. Yesterday was also a significant birthday in her life. My sister, as everyone who has access to this blog knows I think, is Asian. I am so happy my parents brought her into my life. I didn't get to know her until I was grown and had lived away from the family for a number of years. But she and I have always shared some similar values, experiences and great humor. She never fails to make me laugh. And for that I am grateful.
It is right now just moments after midnight on the 12th of September, so her birthday is over. But I received a note from her yesterday, and I want to share two lines she wrote. I have not gotten permission, but I hope she doesn't mind.
She wrote, "It is a reflective day for me. ... And a desire to send out the message to my birth mother that I am "OK" is really important to me.
I believe this is a key desire buried deep within our psyche. I know it was an unfulfilled desire of mine all of the years after I had left home until my mom died. I always was searching for a way to have her understand I was doing OK. Into death she carried the belief that I was wayward and not on the right track.
I hope Amari has the opportunity at some point in her life to return to Ethiopia and find her birth mother and tell her what a brave thing she did by allowing another person, half way around the world, raise her daughter so she would have a chance to become something in life.
There are dates stuck in my head and heart as well. Some of the dates are obscure in my memory as to the calendar date, but the moment in my emotional time line is etched deep in the cell walls of my memory.
Dates are mileposts in our lives that signify important decisions, actions, and events. Some of them are good, some of them not so good. The more good dates we can string together in life the happier our lives.
I wonder what is the MOST significant date in your life to this point? You don't need to write to tell me, but ponder on it. I hope it is a good moment.
September 11 has become to this nation a date of significance. Prior to 2001, however, it was already of significance to my sister. It is her birthday. Yesterday was also a significant birthday in her life. My sister, as everyone who has access to this blog knows I think, is Asian. I am so happy my parents brought her into my life. I didn't get to know her until I was grown and had lived away from the family for a number of years. But she and I have always shared some similar values, experiences and great humor. She never fails to make me laugh. And for that I am grateful.
It is right now just moments after midnight on the 12th of September, so her birthday is over. But I received a note from her yesterday, and I want to share two lines she wrote. I have not gotten permission, but I hope she doesn't mind.
She wrote, "It is a reflective day for me. ... And a desire to send out the message to my birth mother that I am "OK" is really important to me.
I believe this is a key desire buried deep within our psyche. I know it was an unfulfilled desire of mine all of the years after I had left home until my mom died. I always was searching for a way to have her understand I was doing OK. Into death she carried the belief that I was wayward and not on the right track.
I hope Amari has the opportunity at some point in her life to return to Ethiopia and find her birth mother and tell her what a brave thing she did by allowing another person, half way around the world, raise her daughter so she would have a chance to become something in life.
There are dates stuck in my head and heart as well. Some of the dates are obscure in my memory as to the calendar date, but the moment in my emotional time line is etched deep in the cell walls of my memory.
Dates are mileposts in our lives that signify important decisions, actions, and events. Some of them are good, some of them not so good. The more good dates we can string together in life the happier our lives.
I wonder what is the MOST significant date in your life to this point? You don't need to write to tell me, but ponder on it. I hope it is a good moment.
Why am I doing this??
As you know, I have been reading a book titled How to Read the Bible, subtitled A Guide to scripture, Then and Now, by James Kugel. Kugel is a very educated Orthodox Jew and his education naturally comes through in this book in his choice of words and in the way he presents material.
If one is not familiar with Bible scholarship, they will find themselves consulting a dictionary frequently to truly understand the text. Not the text he writes about. The text he uses to describe the text he writes about.
I have encountered so many new words and phrases my head swims. And the ideas and methods that Bible scholars use (new to me) sort of jumble together in my mind until he has explained them in enough different ways with enough different illustrations that I begin to sort them out.
All of this learning and learning is of almost no value to me in everyday life. I could never use the words I have learned in any conversation. First of all, I’d probably not use them exactly properly, and second, no one I know would know what I was talking about.
So, I look at myself and wonder why I am so weird. I enjoy this. And I can hardly walk by the book without picking it up and reading a few or lots of pages.
There is a scripture in the Bible that addresses this sort of behavior. I quote the KJV here because it is the most familiar to me, and I quote the entire first 7 verses of 2 Timothy 3, to set the stage:
2 Timothy 3
1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, high minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Confession: Having been raised under a hand of guilt instead of grace, I have always had verse 5 ringing in my ears. “Having a form of Godliness, but denying the power thereof…”
I realize that a monotheistic religion is senseless if we reject the power of the God we strive to serve. Being a Christian, I of course am monotheistic. And I believe that if I am to be rewarded at the end of this mortal life I must be in relationship with God.
All of that to say I fear being found denying the power of God in my quest for God. It is almost like in my search for meaning I have set myself up for failure because I am reaching beyond the simple belief and believability spirit with which I was raised.
However. That fear is secondary to my quest. So on I plod, trying to find the real writings of the ancients to satisfy myself, that the writings were NOT the hand or voice of God in the literal sense, but simply the impressions of men’s own thought processes as they allowed their inner being to be influenced by a entity that I can only name as the Holy Spirit.
And, I believe I am continuing in the same vein, trying to make sense of a very complex and convoluted set of writings whose origins and authors are not precisely known.
For anyone still checking, Thanks. If you choose to opt out, I wouldn’t blame you. I may have to soon in order to get more sleep!
If one is not familiar with Bible scholarship, they will find themselves consulting a dictionary frequently to truly understand the text. Not the text he writes about. The text he uses to describe the text he writes about.
I have encountered so many new words and phrases my head swims. And the ideas and methods that Bible scholars use (new to me) sort of jumble together in my mind until he has explained them in enough different ways with enough different illustrations that I begin to sort them out.
All of this learning and learning is of almost no value to me in everyday life. I could never use the words I have learned in any conversation. First of all, I’d probably not use them exactly properly, and second, no one I know would know what I was talking about.
So, I look at myself and wonder why I am so weird. I enjoy this. And I can hardly walk by the book without picking it up and reading a few or lots of pages.
There is a scripture in the Bible that addresses this sort of behavior. I quote the KJV here because it is the most familiar to me, and I quote the entire first 7 verses of 2 Timothy 3, to set the stage:
2 Timothy 3
1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, high minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Confession: Having been raised under a hand of guilt instead of grace, I have always had verse 5 ringing in my ears. “Having a form of Godliness, but denying the power thereof…”
I realize that a monotheistic religion is senseless if we reject the power of the God we strive to serve. Being a Christian, I of course am monotheistic. And I believe that if I am to be rewarded at the end of this mortal life I must be in relationship with God.
All of that to say I fear being found denying the power of God in my quest for God. It is almost like in my search for meaning I have set myself up for failure because I am reaching beyond the simple belief and believability spirit with which I was raised.
However. That fear is secondary to my quest. So on I plod, trying to find the real writings of the ancients to satisfy myself, that the writings were NOT the hand or voice of God in the literal sense, but simply the impressions of men’s own thought processes as they allowed their inner being to be influenced by a entity that I can only name as the Holy Spirit.
And, I believe I am continuing in the same vein, trying to make sense of a very complex and convoluted set of writings whose origins and authors are not precisely known.
For anyone still checking, Thanks. If you choose to opt out, I wouldn’t blame you. I may have to soon in order to get more sleep!
Monday, September 8, 2008
New word, new concept
Etiology. I had never encountered this word before. But this book I have been absorbed in is mostly about the etiology of the events, issues and characters of the early writings which became a part of our Bible. Etiology, if you do not know, means the cause of something. It is most often used, quite often used, in the medical field to explain the causal effect behind a situation being exhibited in a person. For example, if you were to study why a person has a cold, you most likely would eventually work your way back to the fact that this person came in contact with a cold virus of some kind. The virus would be the principle etiological source of the sickness, the cold.
Biblical scholars have postulated that many of the events and characters in the Bible are simply creations, fabrications if you will, that explain a situation currently observed. For instance, to explain why Israel's neighbors were so hostile and a warring nation the early interpreters of the ancient writings created a story of twins born to Issac and Rebeka, Esau and Jacob. Esau, as you may know, was identified as a man of the woods. He hunted, he was coarse, he was uneducated. Jacob, on the other hand, is said to have dwelt in the tents, had schooling, was gentle. In time, they both became great nations (according to ancient interpretations). The Edomites, Esau's offspring, were not nearly as nice as Jacob's offspring. Also, remember this is all being interpreted by the Israelis, or Jews of the time. Many scholars believe that the nations of the Edomites and Israel were made up of a number of different peoples. But because the Israelites were so intent on being God's chosen nation and peoples, the ancient stories were adapted, manipulated and simply restructured to place them in that category.
Thus, Esau and Jacob were etiological characters used to develop a story and a history that in all probability was fabricated long after they were to have lived.
The book goes on to talk about Adam and Eve and the serpent, Abraham and Issac and the command by God to sacrifice Issac. It talks about Babel and a host of other events and characters that needed to be created in order to explain in acceptable terms the position the Israelites were in at each particular point in time.
It's tough for me to convey it all to you here. You would need to read the book, but I am struggling a lot and I have a pretty good grasp of many of the theology terms and much of the concepts of ancient writings. I'm not saying any of you would have as much difficulty, but if your interest doesn't run in this vein I would imagine you would soon be put off by the language. I have come to the conclusion I have a textbook in my hands, rather than a book written for the average person.
I am fully enveloped in the book. I find it fascinating. But for me it is answering questions I have had since about the 8Th grade. And I am amazed that some of the things I had begun to postulate in my own mind were close to what this writer claims. Thrilling, actually.
Where it will leave me I cannot tell yet. My thoughts on what the old testament means to me has changed dramatically already. Whether it will change my core beliefs, I doubt. But I do expect to be changed. I would be disappointed in the book if it didn't. I really have no time to read books that don't change me at this stage in life. Time is too short. I will die with thousands of books not read as it is.
Biblical scholars have postulated that many of the events and characters in the Bible are simply creations, fabrications if you will, that explain a situation currently observed. For instance, to explain why Israel's neighbors were so hostile and a warring nation the early interpreters of the ancient writings created a story of twins born to Issac and Rebeka, Esau and Jacob. Esau, as you may know, was identified as a man of the woods. He hunted, he was coarse, he was uneducated. Jacob, on the other hand, is said to have dwelt in the tents, had schooling, was gentle. In time, they both became great nations (according to ancient interpretations). The Edomites, Esau's offspring, were not nearly as nice as Jacob's offspring. Also, remember this is all being interpreted by the Israelis, or Jews of the time. Many scholars believe that the nations of the Edomites and Israel were made up of a number of different peoples. But because the Israelites were so intent on being God's chosen nation and peoples, the ancient stories were adapted, manipulated and simply restructured to place them in that category.
Thus, Esau and Jacob were etiological characters used to develop a story and a history that in all probability was fabricated long after they were to have lived.
The book goes on to talk about Adam and Eve and the serpent, Abraham and Issac and the command by God to sacrifice Issac. It talks about Babel and a host of other events and characters that needed to be created in order to explain in acceptable terms the position the Israelites were in at each particular point in time.
It's tough for me to convey it all to you here. You would need to read the book, but I am struggling a lot and I have a pretty good grasp of many of the theology terms and much of the concepts of ancient writings. I'm not saying any of you would have as much difficulty, but if your interest doesn't run in this vein I would imagine you would soon be put off by the language. I have come to the conclusion I have a textbook in my hands, rather than a book written for the average person.
I am fully enveloped in the book. I find it fascinating. But for me it is answering questions I have had since about the 8Th grade. And I am amazed that some of the things I had begun to postulate in my own mind were close to what this writer claims. Thrilling, actually.
Where it will leave me I cannot tell yet. My thoughts on what the old testament means to me has changed dramatically already. Whether it will change my core beliefs, I doubt. But I do expect to be changed. I would be disappointed in the book if it didn't. I really have no time to read books that don't change me at this stage in life. Time is too short. I will die with thousands of books not read as it is.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)