I was having lunch with a friend today who wanted to discuss our final exam for New Testament. It was a take home exam (only 3 essays at no more than 3 pages single spaced). I thought it was funny when he said that after studying more about Paul's eschatology (in Romans, 1 Thessalonians, Philippians, etc.) that he wished for the eschaton to come. No one said it was going to be a bad day! Actually it sounds wonderful to be redeemed by God and brought up into heaven so we wouldn't have to do the rest of these finals from H-E-L-L!
It is a little paradoxical to have hellish finals in a seminary... but that is what they are. I have not had much time to do anything but bury myself in books in the last few weeks. Thus I apologize for not blogging. I will resume blogging when I am done with all of these papers.
(P.S. I still have a paper to write about Matthew 25:31-46 so if anyone has any resources that will help let me know!)
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Sunday, November 29, 2009
"Love/Hate" relationships, the Escaton, Pop-culture, and Mayan Calenders
Okay... so I am on this whole pop-culture theme in the last few days but I hope that everyone is enjoying it! (Me and pop culture are not usually close... I tend to be in my own world).
Here goes... The movie 2012 is in theaters and has the population in an uproar. This entry will contain NO spoilers because I refuse to see this movie (until it comes out on DVD and I can get it at a redbox for $1).
In his sermon this morning, our pastor was discussing the "Love/Hate" relationship people have with the end of the world. No one wants it to come, people want to hide from it or try to stop it. But, nonetheless, people love to fantasize what will happen. They even make major motion pictures about it. (i.e. 2012, I Am Legend, Knowing, and the list goes on...). Why?? No idea!
However, what I can tell you is that people are freaking out way too much about 2012. I am sorry, Christianity never met the Mayans... two different continents at two very different times. People are mixing up the Christian Scriptures with a Mayan rock! (See cartoon)
Christians, if you read the scriptures literally (which I usually do when the meaning is obvious) Matthew 24: 29-31 and 36-39 says:
29 ‘Immediately after the suffering of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of heaven will be shaken. 30Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see “the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven” with power and great glory. 31And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
36 ‘But about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son,* but only the Father. 37For as the days of Noah were, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 38For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark, 39and they knew nothing until the flood came and swept them all away, so too will be the coming of the Son of Man.
So obviously if you follow the scriptures then December 21st, 2012 is not be the coming of the end, because no one will know the time! Obviousness here.
Also a brief history lesson for those who do not know much about the Mayan Calender, the calender does not "end" but actually shifts into it's final stage. Each of these rings, moves inward at a certain point in time. The last ring ends on APPROXIMATELY December 21, 2012 (this is due to dating differences that we can only estimate) and shifts us into the final stage of the calendar. Nothing of significance happened at the times when the stages shifted in previous history (that we know of) so we can assume that the shift will not be entirely evident.
For those of you who remember, a similar pop-culture issue around the year 1999 left much of the world in panic. Y2K was coming! The shift into a new millennium (not really... the shift did not actually happen until 2001 because there is no year Zero). But still people were freaking out that computers would crash and the world would be ending. Popular books like the Left Behind series helped people to freak out even more. And what happened on January 1st, 2000. Nothing! Some computers went back to the year 1900, but the problem was fixed almost immediately. Man did a lot of people look like idiots!?
So for anyone who is freaking out about this. Consult historical data... nothing is going to happen. But I did hear there is going to be one hell of a party at the Mayan pyramid! (If you want to go I will try not to laugh... but I will probably fail).
Here goes... The movie 2012 is in theaters and has the population in an uproar. This entry will contain NO spoilers because I refuse to see this movie (until it comes out on DVD and I can get it at a redbox for $1).
In his sermon this morning, our pastor was discussing the "Love/Hate" relationship people have with the end of the world. No one wants it to come, people want to hide from it or try to stop it. But, nonetheless, people love to fantasize what will happen. They even make major motion pictures about it. (i.e. 2012, I Am Legend, Knowing, and the list goes on...). Why?? No idea!
However, what I can tell you is that people are freaking out way too much about 2012. I am sorry, Christianity never met the Mayans... two different continents at two very different times. People are mixing up the Christian Scriptures with a Mayan rock! (See cartoon)
Christians, if you read the scriptures literally (which I usually do when the meaning is obvious) Matthew 24: 29-31 and 36-39 says:29 ‘Immediately after the suffering of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of heaven will be shaken. 30Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see “the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven” with power and great glory. 31And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
36 ‘But about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son,* but only the Father. 37For as the days of Noah were, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 38For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark, 39and they knew nothing until the flood came and swept them all away, so too will be the coming of the Son of Man.
So obviously if you follow the scriptures then December 21st, 2012 is not be the coming of the end, because no one will know the time! Obviousness here.
Also a brief history lesson for those who do not know much about the Mayan Calender, the calender does not "end" but actually shifts into it's final stage. Each of these rings, moves inward at a certain point in time. The last ring ends on APPROXIMATELY December 21, 2012 (this is due to dating differences that we can only estimate) and shifts us into the final stage of the calendar. Nothing of significance happened at the times when the stages shifted in previous history (that we know of) so we can assume that the shift will not be entirely evident.
For those of you who remember, a similar pop-culture issue around the year 1999 left much of the world in panic. Y2K was coming! The shift into a new millennium (not really... the shift did not actually happen until 2001 because there is no year Zero). But still people were freaking out that computers would crash and the world would be ending. Popular books like the Left Behind series helped people to freak out even more. And what happened on January 1st, 2000. Nothing! Some computers went back to the year 1900, but the problem was fixed almost immediately. Man did a lot of people look like idiots!?
So for anyone who is freaking out about this. Consult historical data... nothing is going to happen. But I did hear there is going to be one hell of a party at the Mayan pyramid! (If you want to go I will try not to laugh... but I will probably fail).
Friday, November 27, 2009
Hidden Meanings, Masonic Secrets, Google and Enlightenment
He has done it again! Another best selling book by Dan Brown about Robert Langdon's journeys to find secrets surrounding the mysterious history of faith. (Note: Spoiler alert! Just got done reading the book myself and I am glad no one spoiled it for me so don't read below unless you want to know what happens... and if you want to know what happens that is cheating in my opinion. This is not sparknotes.com, it is my blog so don't expect to get all the information... ok back to the point).
Sadly, what I would like to inform people is that if Robert Langdon had known his Bible and the origin of languages better, he would have understood for himself that what Katherine and Peter Solomon were telling him was not logical. (Mental image of the new Star Trek movie where Spock looks at the Captain and says "His logic is sound"... but in this case "His logic is not sound").
Sometimes I wonder how much of the information that Dan Brown presents is his own opinion (which he has no scholarly proof of), his made-up ideas (which are quite far fetched), and stuff from poorly informed (and un-scholarly) websites he found by Google-ing (or on Wikipedia... not scholarly either!).
Don't get me wrong, I really do love the concept of fictional books that relate historical questions or myths to modern life. (If you are looking for other authors like Dan Brown try Raymond Khoury and Kate Mosse). But I tend to find it more entertaining when I come at then with a quizzical eye, ready to question if what I am reading is true.
Sometimes, an obvious slip up occurs and I can tell that the author is clueless on the subject (like when Raymond Khoury tried to tell us that the Second Temple of Jerusalem was more beautiful than the first... nope sorry, people were distressed by how "ugly" it was in comparison to the one Solomon built). Other times, there is a subtle consciousness that he may not be right and the desire to look it up in a textbook or in the case of this book, the Hebrew and Greek Lexicons.
I wish I could quote the page numbers that cited some of the slips, but I was listening to the audio-book on a long drive... which made it more difficult for me to find them. However, I will mention one slip that had me almost crying I was laughing so hard. Robert Langdon and Katherine Solomon are discussing what had been deciphered from the stone pyramid. It was Latin (which is one language I do not know but bear with me), and it read "Jeova Sanctus Unus."
Katherine translates this as "One true God" but it may also mean "God's holy one" (contextually is more often the first use but it needs to be noted that it has been translated the other way as well). But the funny part is when Katherine goes on the mental process of what "Jeova" means. She relates it back to Hebrew "Jehovah" which she says is a Hebrew name for God in the Old Testament. Haha!
Ok Hebrew scholars... what is the problem with this word?? Firstly, it is not a word! Properly transliterated it would be "Yehowah" (The J goes to Y for yod, the V goes to W for waw) Ok now, take out the vowels, because Hebrew was originally consonantal, and you get Y-H-W-H, the divine name. This name was never to be spoken, so instead the reader would say "Adonai" when they got to the name in the scripture readings. When the Masoretes came around and added their systems of vowels to the consonantal language, they added the vowels of "Adonai" to YHWH. Many years later some people misread this as "Yehovah". (Please note that the transliteration above may not make much sense because the vowels' English equivalents are spelled differently but the pronunciation makes sense if you think about it).
There are more language goofs, plus a few smatterings of misquoted Bible passages, and quite a few misinterpreted apocalyptic passages. What is the point I am trying to get at? A word of caution to those who read these books religiously (haha no pun intended), but make sure you take everything at face value, do not read too much into these books. Remember that they are works of fiction, meant purely for entertainment. If you want to know more, use JSTOR or Google Scholar to find the information from a trusted source. (And word of advice to Dan Brown and his editors, you are probably making millions from these books, maybe it is time to hire a religion scholar to help you do the proper research so you are getting crap from the religious circles! Someone like Me? Wishful thinking I know!)
Well, I will leave you with a very good discussion that I have redacted (just like on the CIA server in the book... I am good at this sort of thing...)
Peter Solomon: "If the Bible does not contain hidden meaning, then why have so many of history's finest minds... become so obsessed with studying it?"
Robert Langdon: "Peter, you know I find this topic fascinating. and I can understand that it might be tempting for bright minds to imagine the Scriptures contain hidden meaning, but it makes no logical sense to me.... Teachers teach... We speak openly. Why would the prophets-the greatest teachers in history-obscure their language? If they hoped to change the world, why would they speak in code? Why not speak plainly so the world can understand?" (pages 490&491).
Langdon has an interesting question (and I don't think Solomon's answer was right so I did not want to include it). Gnostics searched for a hidden meaning within the words spoken by Jesus and they were considered heretics... so wouldn't finding a hidden meaning in the text be like looking for this secret gnosis (aka Enlightenment)?
Biblical scholars are not searching for a deeper meaning, we are searching for better ways of understanding the way the text was meant to be understood... if that makes any sense... That is how Biblical scholars differ from the people Dan Brown mentions in his book. Because we are not trying to find the secret meanings... we are trying to understand the facts.
P.S. Again I want to say I was not trying to be harsh to Dan Brown... the book was wonderfully written and I thoroughly enjoyed it. But it was fictional, so please remember that.
Sadly, what I would like to inform people is that if Robert Langdon had known his Bible and the origin of languages better, he would have understood for himself that what Katherine and Peter Solomon were telling him was not logical. (Mental image of the new Star Trek movie where Spock looks at the Captain and says "His logic is sound"... but in this case "His logic is not sound").
Sometimes I wonder how much of the information that Dan Brown presents is his own opinion (which he has no scholarly proof of), his made-up ideas (which are quite far fetched), and stuff from poorly informed (and un-scholarly) websites he found by Google-ing (or on Wikipedia... not scholarly either!).
Don't get me wrong, I really do love the concept of fictional books that relate historical questions or myths to modern life. (If you are looking for other authors like Dan Brown try Raymond Khoury and Kate Mosse). But I tend to find it more entertaining when I come at then with a quizzical eye, ready to question if what I am reading is true.
Sometimes, an obvious slip up occurs and I can tell that the author is clueless on the subject (like when Raymond Khoury tried to tell us that the Second Temple of Jerusalem was more beautiful than the first... nope sorry, people were distressed by how "ugly" it was in comparison to the one Solomon built). Other times, there is a subtle consciousness that he may not be right and the desire to look it up in a textbook or in the case of this book, the Hebrew and Greek Lexicons.
I wish I could quote the page numbers that cited some of the slips, but I was listening to the audio-book on a long drive... which made it more difficult for me to find them. However, I will mention one slip that had me almost crying I was laughing so hard. Robert Langdon and Katherine Solomon are discussing what had been deciphered from the stone pyramid. It was Latin (which is one language I do not know but bear with me), and it read "Jeova Sanctus Unus."
Katherine translates this as "One true God" but it may also mean "God's holy one" (contextually is more often the first use but it needs to be noted that it has been translated the other way as well). But the funny part is when Katherine goes on the mental process of what "Jeova" means. She relates it back to Hebrew "Jehovah" which she says is a Hebrew name for God in the Old Testament. Haha!
Ok Hebrew scholars... what is the problem with this word?? Firstly, it is not a word! Properly transliterated it would be "Yehowah" (The J goes to Y for yod, the V goes to W for waw) Ok now, take out the vowels, because Hebrew was originally consonantal, and you get Y-H-W-H, the divine name. This name was never to be spoken, so instead the reader would say "Adonai" when they got to the name in the scripture readings. When the Masoretes came around and added their systems of vowels to the consonantal language, they added the vowels of "Adonai" to YHWH. Many years later some people misread this as "Yehovah". (Please note that the transliteration above may not make much sense because the vowels' English equivalents are spelled differently but the pronunciation makes sense if you think about it).
There are more language goofs, plus a few smatterings of misquoted Bible passages, and quite a few misinterpreted apocalyptic passages. What is the point I am trying to get at? A word of caution to those who read these books religiously (haha no pun intended), but make sure you take everything at face value, do not read too much into these books. Remember that they are works of fiction, meant purely for entertainment. If you want to know more, use JSTOR or Google Scholar to find the information from a trusted source. (And word of advice to Dan Brown and his editors, you are probably making millions from these books, maybe it is time to hire a religion scholar to help you do the proper research so you are getting crap from the religious circles! Someone like Me? Wishful thinking I know!)
Well, I will leave you with a very good discussion that I have redacted (just like on the CIA server in the book... I am good at this sort of thing...)
Peter Solomon: "If the Bible does not contain hidden meaning, then why have so many of history's finest minds... become so obsessed with studying it?"
Robert Langdon: "Peter, you know I find this topic fascinating. and I can understand that it might be tempting for bright minds to imagine the Scriptures contain hidden meaning, but it makes no logical sense to me.... Teachers teach... We speak openly. Why would the prophets-the greatest teachers in history-obscure their language? If they hoped to change the world, why would they speak in code? Why not speak plainly so the world can understand?" (pages 490&491).
Langdon has an interesting question (and I don't think Solomon's answer was right so I did not want to include it). Gnostics searched for a hidden meaning within the words spoken by Jesus and they were considered heretics... so wouldn't finding a hidden meaning in the text be like looking for this secret gnosis (aka Enlightenment)?
Biblical scholars are not searching for a deeper meaning, we are searching for better ways of understanding the way the text was meant to be understood... if that makes any sense... That is how Biblical scholars differ from the people Dan Brown mentions in his book. Because we are not trying to find the secret meanings... we are trying to understand the facts.
P.S. Again I want to say I was not trying to be harsh to Dan Brown... the book was wonderfully written and I thoroughly enjoyed it. But it was fictional, so please remember that.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Rainbows in Jesus' Teachings
(No, Jesus does not reference the story of Noah... but on a side note I did watch Evan Almighty the other day... funny movie!)
Now I don't normally come home and blog immediately after church, I like to eat breakfast first. But I am doing this as a special favor to Suzanne, with whom I had this conversation, and for Scott, who preached this morning which prompted the conversation with the former. (P.S. Great job Scott! I hope you enjoy my reply).
This week's Gospel reading was from Mark 10:17-22, which is the story of the Rich Man who asks Jesus how he can obtain salvation and Jesus tells him to sell all of his possessions and the man leaves distressed because he has so much. Scott did an excellent job of relating this story to the questions of "What" and "How". The man is asking the postmodern scientific questions of the 21st century American mindset (mind you in 1st century Palestine... wow was he ahead of the times!?).
I had ranted in a previous blog about the black and white v. grey areas. Black and white referring to the hard sciences (like physics and chemistry), the "What" and "How" and the grey referring to the soft sciences (like psychology, but in the case of the former blog it was Pastoral Care). But what I realized this morning is there is another element... COLOR! (Yikes! Cower and hide!)-- Note: I am going to adjust the definitions from the former blog. Pastoral Care is colorful, not grey... which then makes much more sense if you keep reading!
Scott and myself come from the mindset of black and white. It is amazing how we ended up in religion, which is VERY colorful. (Mom, this may be the subconscious reason as to why I like wearing black, white, grey, and brown... Just in case you were wondering!) I am realizing that the reason I am drawn to Bible (and Scott may be also) is because it tends to black and white. It is written down. We can use the historical critical, literary critical, source, and socio-anthropological methods to figure out what is really going on in the text. We are okay with the text becoming grey in some areas because it makes for more interesting scholarly debate. (Yes, I know I am a nerd but moving on...)
People like myself tend to shy away from color. It is too much for us to grasp. It is easier to deal with different shades of grey (because they are all lighter forms of black or darker forms of white it you think about it). But some scholars, like Suzanne, are able to take these forms of grey in the text and give them color through forms like narrative criticism. It makes the text come more alive and opens up the debate significantly. The question that I would associate with the colors is not "What" or "How" but "WHY?"
A good scholar can take their box of 64 Crayola crayons and color the answers to that question. Now me, I am not ready for that... I like the box of 3 that comes free from Buffalo Wild Wings with the kids menu, Red, Blue, and Green. Maybe eventually I will be able to move to the box of 4 from Perkins, and then to the box of 8 sold by Crayola.
What I am trying to say is that some people are colorful. The black and white does not interest them... or maybe they could never do a grey-scale picture. Then there are the others who prefer the grey-scale and hide under blankets when presented with the 64 Crayolas. (I think colors are worse than the boogie-man.... and by the way, why do kids need that many colors? A Macaroni and Cheese crayon? Really?)
But anyways, the question of "Why", this color that we are presented with is important. Like Scott says, Jesus is not telling the man a black and white answer. Jesus is trying to remove the power that this man's wealth has given him so that he can see that Jesus, his salvation is right in front of him. (I wish that Mark would have followed up so we can hear the end of the story, but that is beyond the point). Jesus' answer was colorful when the man wanted it to be black and white. That is probably why he was distressed when he left Jesus' sight.
In the same way, I prefer to hear the black and white answer. Slowly I am introducing color into my scholarship. It is uncomfortable for me, but not everything is black and white. And, color does make life and scholarship a lot prettier.
Now I don't normally come home and blog immediately after church, I like to eat breakfast first. But I am doing this as a special favor to Suzanne, with whom I had this conversation, and for Scott, who preached this morning which prompted the conversation with the former. (P.S. Great job Scott! I hope you enjoy my reply).
This week's Gospel reading was from Mark 10:17-22, which is the story of the Rich Man who asks Jesus how he can obtain salvation and Jesus tells him to sell all of his possessions and the man leaves distressed because he has so much. Scott did an excellent job of relating this story to the questions of "What" and "How". The man is asking the postmodern scientific questions of the 21st century American mindset (mind you in 1st century Palestine... wow was he ahead of the times!?).
I had ranted in a previous blog about the black and white v. grey areas. Black and white referring to the hard sciences (like physics and chemistry), the "What" and "How" and the grey referring to the soft sciences (like psychology, but in the case of the former blog it was Pastoral Care). But what I realized this morning is there is another element... COLOR! (Yikes! Cower and hide!)-- Note: I am going to adjust the definitions from the former blog. Pastoral Care is colorful, not grey... which then makes much more sense if you keep reading!
Scott and myself come from the mindset of black and white. It is amazing how we ended up in religion, which is VERY colorful. (Mom, this may be the subconscious reason as to why I like wearing black, white, grey, and brown... Just in case you were wondering!) I am realizing that the reason I am drawn to Bible (and Scott may be also) is because it tends to black and white. It is written down. We can use the historical critical, literary critical, source, and socio-anthropological methods to figure out what is really going on in the text. We are okay with the text becoming grey in some areas because it makes for more interesting scholarly debate. (Yes, I know I am a nerd but moving on...)
People like myself tend to shy away from color. It is too much for us to grasp. It is easier to deal with different shades of grey (because they are all lighter forms of black or darker forms of white it you think about it). But some scholars, like Suzanne, are able to take these forms of grey in the text and give them color through forms like narrative criticism. It makes the text come more alive and opens up the debate significantly. The question that I would associate with the colors is not "What" or "How" but "WHY?"
A good scholar can take their box of 64 Crayola crayons and color the answers to that question. Now me, I am not ready for that... I like the box of 3 that comes free from Buffalo Wild Wings with the kids menu, Red, Blue, and Green. Maybe eventually I will be able to move to the box of 4 from Perkins, and then to the box of 8 sold by Crayola.
What I am trying to say is that some people are colorful. The black and white does not interest them... or maybe they could never do a grey-scale picture. Then there are the others who prefer the grey-scale and hide under blankets when presented with the 64 Crayolas. (I think colors are worse than the boogie-man.... and by the way, why do kids need that many colors? A Macaroni and Cheese crayon? Really?)
But anyways, the question of "Why", this color that we are presented with is important. Like Scott says, Jesus is not telling the man a black and white answer. Jesus is trying to remove the power that this man's wealth has given him so that he can see that Jesus, his salvation is right in front of him. (I wish that Mark would have followed up so we can hear the end of the story, but that is beyond the point). Jesus' answer was colorful when the man wanted it to be black and white. That is probably why he was distressed when he left Jesus' sight.
In the same way, I prefer to hear the black and white answer. Slowly I am introducing color into my scholarship. It is uncomfortable for me, but not everything is black and white. And, color does make life and scholarship a lot prettier.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Bound for a world called Academia
(Movie announcer voice with fantasy movie music in the background) "The journey of one young adult through seminary bound towards a world called... Academia. A world full of books and papers, where imagination brings forth power..."
Haha, right. I wish it were that glorious! I found out that my destination was this world called Academia. A world of facts and scientific reasoning (although applied mainly in my path to literature).
Why bring this path up?
Because recently, I have been struggling to handle the midterm assignment in my Pastoral Care class. I don't deal well with not having concrete answers, or a real way of deducting these concrete answers. Pastoral Care is a "touchy feel-y class" according to my friend Suzanne.
In the midterm we are doing a case study on a "grey area." You must create a cultural context, then figure out the developmental issues, the psychological issues, the theological issues, write a follow-up session, write a prayer (yikes!), and pick a psalm to help the person (which is a struggle for someone who does not like to take scripture out of context-says the academic).
I am not called into Pastoral ministry and I can't stand this class because the professor expects that we all are (mind you the name is Pastoral Care, but it is a requirement for all MDiv students and MTS's have to take 2 courses in "touchy feel-y"). But seriously, how are you expected to get a grade on something that is situational?? Depending on who you are and who you are working with and the situation they are in, the way to handle the situation will be different!
One of the admissions counselors told me when I was talking about Pastoral Care that I will probably get an A- with the note:"too intellectual" because I that is what I have always been taught. He said it would be the worst grade I will get in seminary... and part of me hopes he is right, because if I get a good grade on this it will be a miracle (yes, the kind that Jesus did).
Haha, right. I wish it were that glorious! I found out that my destination was this world called Academia. A world of facts and scientific reasoning (although applied mainly in my path to literature).
Why bring this path up?
Because recently, I have been struggling to handle the midterm assignment in my Pastoral Care class. I don't deal well with not having concrete answers, or a real way of deducting these concrete answers. Pastoral Care is a "touchy feel-y class" according to my friend Suzanne.
In the midterm we are doing a case study on a "grey area." You must create a cultural context, then figure out the developmental issues, the psychological issues, the theological issues, write a follow-up session, write a prayer (yikes!), and pick a psalm to help the person (which is a struggle for someone who does not like to take scripture out of context-says the academic).
I am not called into Pastoral ministry and I can't stand this class because the professor expects that we all are (mind you the name is Pastoral Care, but it is a requirement for all MDiv students and MTS's have to take 2 courses in "touchy feel-y"). But seriously, how are you expected to get a grade on something that is situational?? Depending on who you are and who you are working with and the situation they are in, the way to handle the situation will be different!
One of the admissions counselors told me when I was talking about Pastoral Care that I will probably get an A- with the note:"too intellectual" because I that is what I have always been taught. He said it would be the worst grade I will get in seminary... and part of me hopes he is right, because if I get a good grade on this it will be a miracle (yes, the kind that Jesus did).
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
"Things are Looking Up"
As I reflect on my last week or so, I am reminded of a wonderful song by Gershwin, "Things are Looking Up." It goes a little like this:
Things are looking up!
It's a great little world we live in!
And I'm happy as a pup since [life] looked up at me.
(I changed the word in brackets to life instead of love because that is what the way it should go...)
Life has looked up at me. I got a work study job (finally!) in the library working on the "Friends of the Library" program that is non-existent at this point and also putting together shelving in the remodeling process. I also just got a job at Buffalo Wild Wings (again) working as a server when the new store down the street opens up! I am also finally starting to settle into a groove of when and how to study. I got into all of my classes for the spring (which did not happen for this semester, lucky it turned out okay though). Plus I am going to be able to afford to go to Rome and Israel in the next year. I am very excited! Hopefully things remain on the upside!
Things are looking up!
It's a great little world we live in!
And I'm happy as a pup since [life] looked up at me.
(I changed the word in brackets to life instead of love because that is what the way it should go...)
Life has looked up at me. I got a work study job (finally!) in the library working on the "Friends of the Library" program that is non-existent at this point and also putting together shelving in the remodeling process. I also just got a job at Buffalo Wild Wings (again) working as a server when the new store down the street opens up! I am also finally starting to settle into a groove of when and how to study. I got into all of my classes for the spring (which did not happen for this semester, lucky it turned out okay though). Plus I am going to be able to afford to go to Rome and Israel in the next year. I am very excited! Hopefully things remain on the upside!
Thursday, October 22, 2009
The use of O.T. vs. H.B.
Okay... I need to do a little bit of complaining about something that has been bothering me for quite some time. In my Masters of Theological Studies program the title of my specialization is "Old Testament" (it is labeled on my grid for graduation). The first time I saw that I just said "Hmm... that is interesting" because it had been quite some time since I had seen the terminology "Old Testament" used in an academic setting. Then I saw it again as the title for a class. I thought "Okay, this is getting ridiculous!"
I prefer to use the title "Hebrew Bible" to avoid offense and because that was what I was taught in undergrad (BTW Thanks Jessica!). I understand that in churches the congregations will probably never call that section of the Bible the "Hebrew Bible" (because of tradition and lack of offending) but in the world of academics it is a different world.
In Academia, the use of "Old Testament" is like a taboo. It shows a lack of respect for the Judaism due to the negative connotations associated with the word "old." In a book I am reading for my New Testament class called The Misunderstood Jew, the author Amy-Jill Levine (a New Testament scholar who is Jewish herself) emphasizes the same points as I have noted above.
I am tempted to bring forth a few complaints to the administration about this! "Old Testament" is offensive and it also could look bad on my transcript when I submit it to certain PhD. Programs. (Not to mention the grid itself really isn't set up well).
I will mention that when referencing the Septuagint (Greek Translation of Hebrew Bible) the term should be Septuagint or Septuagints... But that is just a random note...
Okay... Rant Over.
I prefer to use the title "Hebrew Bible" to avoid offense and because that was what I was taught in undergrad (BTW Thanks Jessica!). I understand that in churches the congregations will probably never call that section of the Bible the "Hebrew Bible" (because of tradition and lack of offending) but in the world of academics it is a different world.
In Academia, the use of "Old Testament" is like a taboo. It shows a lack of respect for the Judaism due to the negative connotations associated with the word "old." In a book I am reading for my New Testament class called The Misunderstood Jew, the author Amy-Jill Levine (a New Testament scholar who is Jewish herself) emphasizes the same points as I have noted above.
I am tempted to bring forth a few complaints to the administration about this! "Old Testament" is offensive and it also could look bad on my transcript when I submit it to certain PhD. Programs. (Not to mention the grid itself really isn't set up well).
I will mention that when referencing the Septuagint (Greek Translation of Hebrew Bible) the term should be Septuagint or Septuagints... But that is just a random note...
Okay... Rant Over.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Baseball and Hebrew
So for those of you who have access to and can read my Facebook page, you may have noticed that I like baseball.... a lot. (Twins fan for life!) I tend to make analogies that relate back to baseball. (P.S. if you don't know a lot about baseball I am sorry... google the terms? Some examples: I am up to bat, he is on deck, it threw a change-up, etc.)
The one most recently used on my Facebook wall was: "Every time I start to get the pattern it throws a curveball." This was in reply to working on my Hebrew homework and wanting to throw something against a wall (which is not a good recommendation if you have neighbors).
Let me set the situation for you.... We are in Chapter 5 of Seow's A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew, learning about Geminates and Segolates (I do not expect you to know what that means). But, what bothered me was when I previewed the vocabulary for that chapter and we came to the word for father: 'ab (the b is pronounced with a v sound).
When I looked at the definition it named the plural as 'abot (same v pronunciation). The ending -ot is typically a feminine ending... but it was on a masculine word!! WHAT!? Confused to the extreme. I had to bring it up in class and the reason for this is because "That is what the language does!"
I do not blame the professor for that answer... I blame the person who originally made this the rule! I hope it was a woman and that she was thinking "I am going to give it a feminine plural ending because when you get too many men in a group they act girl-y." (No offense to any of the men who are reading this).
But if that wasn't the case I am not happy... Why? Because there are straight explanations (fastballs, makes sense) and there are messed up explanations (curveballs, don't make sense) and that was definitely a curveball!!!
The one most recently used on my Facebook wall was: "Every time I start to get the pattern it throws a curveball." This was in reply to working on my Hebrew homework and wanting to throw something against a wall (which is not a good recommendation if you have neighbors).
Let me set the situation for you.... We are in Chapter 5 of Seow's A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew, learning about Geminates and Segolates (I do not expect you to know what that means). But, what bothered me was when I previewed the vocabulary for that chapter and we came to the word for father: 'ab (the b is pronounced with a v sound).
When I looked at the definition it named the plural as 'abot (same v pronunciation). The ending -ot is typically a feminine ending... but it was on a masculine word!! WHAT!? Confused to the extreme. I had to bring it up in class and the reason for this is because "That is what the language does!"
I do not blame the professor for that answer... I blame the person who originally made this the rule! I hope it was a woman and that she was thinking "I am going to give it a feminine plural ending because when you get too many men in a group they act girl-y." (No offense to any of the men who are reading this).
But if that wasn't the case I am not happy... Why? Because there are straight explanations (fastballs, makes sense) and there are messed up explanations (curveballs, don't make sense) and that was definitely a curveball!!!
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Language as a Tool for the Ancient World View
I was listening to my iVocab Hebrew last night to help myself practice the new vocabulary. I had not looked at the chapter (I have a whole system of listening to the vocab, then listening to the narrated Powerpoint presentation, then actually reading the book). Therefore, I had never seen the words except on the flashcard on my iPod.
I had the flashcards on shuffle so that I could not memorize them in order. But somehow two words were put next to each other that made me laugh quite a bit. The words were (in the closest English transliteration I can type) mayim and shamayim. Mayim means water. Shamayim means heaven.
I was brought back to my Introduction to Bible class from undergraduate where we discussed the first creation story in Genesis. God creates light and darkness. Then he separates the waters above from the waters below (with a dome). The ancient world view coming through was that there is water in the sky because it rains.
Therefore, I found it hilarious that the word for heaven has the root of water. The ancient world view have been embedded in the original language. This can also be seen when looking at the creation story. God creates man, (Hebrew: adam) from the soil of the earth (Hebrew for soil: adamah).
Now it all makes sense!
I had the flashcards on shuffle so that I could not memorize them in order. But somehow two words were put next to each other that made me laugh quite a bit. The words were (in the closest English transliteration I can type) mayim and shamayim. Mayim means water. Shamayim means heaven.
I was brought back to my Introduction to Bible class from undergraduate where we discussed the first creation story in Genesis. God creates light and darkness. Then he separates the waters above from the waters below (with a dome). The ancient world view coming through was that there is water in the sky because it rains.
Therefore, I found it hilarious that the word for heaven has the root of water. The ancient world view have been embedded in the original language. This can also be seen when looking at the creation story. God creates man, (Hebrew: adam) from the soil of the earth (Hebrew for soil: adamah).
Now it all makes sense!
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
It's Greek to Me!
I am sorry I have not blogged recently. Homework has kept me quite busy (and a sick cat). Recently, I have been spending a lot of time looking at Seow's A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew.
I love my Hebrew class! The first 5 lessons we spent immersing ourselves in the Hebrew language (similar to a Spanish class where the teacher says something, you repeat and then learn the meaning). But those five classes are over... and now we are looking at the written language.
Ever heard the saying "It's Greek to me!" Seriously, I wish I could say it was that simple! The language may look different but it definitely is not Greek! (although the Hebrew "gimmel" does look a lot like a Greek "lambda").
I am not struggling... yet. But there has been lots of iPod flashcard studying recently and there is plenty more of that to come. I wish learning biblical languages were a little easier! Too bad they are mostly dead languages!
I love my Hebrew class! The first 5 lessons we spent immersing ourselves in the Hebrew language (similar to a Spanish class where the teacher says something, you repeat and then learn the meaning). But those five classes are over... and now we are looking at the written language.
Ever heard the saying "It's Greek to me!" Seriously, I wish I could say it was that simple! The language may look different but it definitely is not Greek! (although the Hebrew "gimmel" does look a lot like a Greek "lambda").
I am not struggling... yet. But there has been lots of iPod flashcard studying recently and there is plenty more of that to come. I wish learning biblical languages were a little easier! Too bad they are mostly dead languages!
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Reading and Chess
In the last few weeks I have realized how much reading I will have to do weekly in order to keep up on all of my classes. Honestly, when people told me seminary is not easy they were right! Now the classes themselves mostly make sense and are not too terribly difficult. But mix a social life with reading and taking care of a sick cat (well in my case only) and one realizes that there is not enough time in the day. But seriously, I am doing the best that I can.
I just recently switched to the Masters of Theological Studies program (from the Masters of Divinity program). And I realized that there is a bit of my character that can explain why. First let me explain the context.
When I was reading for my New Testament class, I noticed that what the author was talking about reminded me of the game of Chess. I got to thinking about that game and remembered that it is a game of waiting. The game of chess usually takes quite a long time if played with equal opponents. I thought to myself.. "Maybe that is why I do not play that game... I am not a patient person."
I try my hardest to be patient but I like to get things done. People who know me know that I tend to walk fast, drive fast (I can't stand being behind slow people!!), and in general just try to do things as quickly as possible.
Thus, when I get to do lots of reading, I want to get it done as quickly as possible. I have no patience for wordy books (ie. my Pastoral Care readings) and therefore I get frustrated.
My patience is also why I switched to a Masters of Theological Studies, I want to get done with my masters as soon as possible (while not wasting my time... like by reading the books mentioned above).
One of the sermons from last week said that we as seminary students need to learn to wait. I agree, in part. My seminary experience will be sort of like a game of chess. Strategic planning (mixed with a bit of impatience... no matter how hard I try to be patient), making the right moves, and lots of learning by observation.
Hopefully by the time I graduate I will be a chess master.
I just recently switched to the Masters of Theological Studies program (from the Masters of Divinity program). And I realized that there is a bit of my character that can explain why. First let me explain the context.
When I was reading for my New Testament class, I noticed that what the author was talking about reminded me of the game of Chess. I got to thinking about that game and remembered that it is a game of waiting. The game of chess usually takes quite a long time if played with equal opponents. I thought to myself.. "Maybe that is why I do not play that game... I am not a patient person."
I try my hardest to be patient but I like to get things done. People who know me know that I tend to walk fast, drive fast (I can't stand being behind slow people!!), and in general just try to do things as quickly as possible.
Thus, when I get to do lots of reading, I want to get it done as quickly as possible. I have no patience for wordy books (ie. my Pastoral Care readings) and therefore I get frustrated.
My patience is also why I switched to a Masters of Theological Studies, I want to get done with my masters as soon as possible (while not wasting my time... like by reading the books mentioned above).
One of the sermons from last week said that we as seminary students need to learn to wait. I agree, in part. My seminary experience will be sort of like a game of chess. Strategic planning (mixed with a bit of impatience... no matter how hard I try to be patient), making the right moves, and lots of learning by observation.
Hopefully by the time I graduate I will be a chess master.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Hellenism v. Medieval Prospective
Hellenism means Greek Culture (no it is not a swear word!)
I do not believe in irony. So it is nor ironic that today (9/15) at chapel the Gospel lesson was from Mark 9:30-37 [there are links of the right side of the screen for different Bibles so you can look it up]. This story is similar to the verse from Mark 10:15 that I used to name my blog. Understanding the culture of Jesus' time is important in fully understanding what Mark truly means when he was writing these verses.
Firstly, you must realize that the culture of Jesus' time is VERY different than the American culture. In my New Testament class we are discussing the Greco-Roman culture and how it affected the way the scriptures were written. This is a prime example!!!
When we approach these verses we bring with us the idea that children are wonderful beings. We all wish we could be children again at some point in our lives. This idea was not present in the cultural mindset until the Middle Ages. (Hence Hellenism v. Medieval Perspective).
In the Hellenistic culture, the social status was very different. If you notice the triangle on the right, above the big black line was the portion of the Roman empire that were citizens. At the top is the Emperor. Below him, would be the senate (all males). The rest were adult male citizens (it was rare for women to be considered citizens although it did happen sometimes). Below that line were male non-citizens, slaves, then women and then children. Children were the lowest of low in the Hellenistic culture. They were disgusting, they cried all of the time, needed lots of attention, and also could not reciprocate the help given to them.
Therefore, in Mark 9:30-37, when Jesus asks his disciples to serve a child he was going against the norm. In that time, people who served only served those who could return the favor. (Notice the change in perspective when reading the title of my blog in the Hellenistic mindset).
Jesus says in these verses that to become first you must come last, to be like a child. This does not mean to act childish. He asks them to disregard their status in the society and to serve all people, regardless of their ability to return the favor.
Servitude is the life we seminarians have all chosen when going into our ministry. We need to forget our status in life in order to become like children. That is what Jesus asks all of his disciples to do.
I do not believe in irony. So it is nor ironic that today (9/15) at chapel the Gospel lesson was from Mark 9:30-37 [there are links of the right side of the screen for different Bibles so you can look it up]. This story is similar to the verse from Mark 10:15 that I used to name my blog. Understanding the culture of Jesus' time is important in fully understanding what Mark truly means when he was writing these verses.
Firstly, you must realize that the culture of Jesus' time is VERY different than the American culture. In my New Testament class we are discussing the Greco-Roman culture and how it affected the way the scriptures were written. This is a prime example!!!
When we approach these verses we bring with us the idea that children are wonderful beings. We all wish we could be children again at some point in our lives. This idea was not present in the cultural mindset until the Middle Ages. (Hence Hellenism v. Medieval Perspective).
In the Hellenistic culture, the social status was very different. If you notice the triangle on the right, above the big black line was the portion of the Roman empire that were citizens. At the top is the Emperor. Below him, would be the senate (all males). The rest were adult male citizens (it was rare for women to be considered citizens although it did happen sometimes). Below that line were male non-citizens, slaves, then women and then children. Children were the lowest of low in the Hellenistic culture. They were disgusting, they cried all of the time, needed lots of attention, and also could not reciprocate the help given to them.
Therefore, in Mark 9:30-37, when Jesus asks his disciples to serve a child he was going against the norm. In that time, people who served only served those who could return the favor. (Notice the change in perspective when reading the title of my blog in the Hellenistic mindset).
Jesus says in these verses that to become first you must come last, to be like a child. This does not mean to act childish. He asks them to disregard their status in the society and to serve all people, regardless of their ability to return the favor.
Servitude is the life we seminarians have all chosen when going into our ministry. We need to forget our status in life in order to become like children. That is what Jesus asks all of his disciples to do.
Derivation of Sophia Teknou
Some people have asked me "Where does the blog name come from?" The word "sophia" is Greek for "wisdom." The word "teknou" (pronounced tech-new) is the genitive form of "teknon" which means "of a child." Therefore the direct translation would be "wisdom of a child." But why the title you may ask? Simple.
Reason #1: When I took Greek in undergrad, the book we used was Bill Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek. The font we downloaded for the class was called "TEKNIAGREEK." Mounce used this name because we were his "little children" learning Greek. That word always stuck with me.
Reason #2: Sophia is a beautiful word. I have always wanted to name one of my daughters that name (if I could find a husband first that would help). It is the word for wisdom and that is what I am striving to gain in my seminary experience.
Reason #3: When I was at orientation, I looked around the room and I knew I was one of the youngest students in my class. (I am not saying that I am THE youngest but in comparison to the average age I am young). Although I don't like to call myself a child the term was fitting. I am a child in my faith and life journey.
Reason #4: When we were at the "Sexual Ethics and Boundaries" Workshop (a requirement for all new students), one of the professors put the verse of Mark 10:15 [see above] and I decided then to name my blog after this verse.
Reason #1: When I took Greek in undergrad, the book we used was Bill Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek. The font we downloaded for the class was called "TEKNIAGREEK." Mounce used this name because we were his "little children" learning Greek. That word always stuck with me.
Reason #2: Sophia is a beautiful word. I have always wanted to name one of my daughters that name (if I could find a husband first that would help). It is the word for wisdom and that is what I am striving to gain in my seminary experience.
Reason #3: When I was at orientation, I looked around the room and I knew I was one of the youngest students in my class. (I am not saying that I am THE youngest but in comparison to the average age I am young). Although I don't like to call myself a child the term was fitting. I am a child in my faith and life journey.
Reason #4: When we were at the "Sexual Ethics and Boundaries" Workshop (a requirement for all new students), one of the professors put the verse of Mark 10:15 [see above] and I decided then to name my blog after this verse.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Introduction to my blog
Welcome! I am so glad that you have decided to read my blog! This is my way of projecting the ideas and lessons to which I have been subject throughout my seminary career. I will discuss different issues of my personal life as well as the different experience in classes, chapel, and other organizations.
My goal is to include my readers in this journey. Feel free to comment, ask questions, etc. I welcome any opinion that is other than my own.
My only request is that if you read, you also pray for me in my journey. God Bless and I hope you enjoy!
My goal is to include my readers in this journey. Feel free to comment, ask questions, etc. I welcome any opinion that is other than my own.
My only request is that if you read, you also pray for me in my journey. God Bless and I hope you enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
