I came across a wonderful little story in Exodus that truly piqued my scientific interest: Exodus 33-34. The interesting parts are these:
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen." Exodus 33: 23
""And it came to pass, when Moses came down from mount Sinai with the two tablets of testimony in Moses; hand, when he came down from the mount, that Moses wist not that the skin of his face shone while he talked with him." Exodus 34: 29.
Humans do not have bioluminescent capabilities. We do not have the facilities in our bodies to cause a reaction that releases bursts of light. So what must have happened is that God's "back parts" released radiation that was resonant with the atoms and molecules in Moses' face. Let me explain how this works:
Electrons are "bound" in specific states in orbits about the nucleii of atoms, which can be thought of as radii. When a photon - a particle that carries electromagnetic energy - is absorbed by an electron, it can go to a higher state, or a larger radius. However, electrons don't like being energetic, so it soon shoots a photon back out so that it can go back to the first state, or radius.
Therefore, God's "back parts" must have emitted photons of a resonant wavelength that made the electrons in Moses' face transition to a higher state for a while, then transition back down and release a photon (thus fluorescing). And this was in the visible range (for the people saw it), and therefore was between approximately 390 nm and 750 nm.
This raises an interesting question: Could we perhaps harness God's back side as a power source? According to The Da Vinci Code, God is theorized as the original source of energy. However, the closer to "heat death" we become, the less power we can harvest and use. Perhaps the utilization of God's back side would allow us to escape that end, and continue surviving on into infinity.
Just food for thought.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Friday, September 24, 2010
Exodus: a series of unfamiliar units and a commentary on current social debates
So far, Exodus is full of units: ephah, matrix, omer, shittim wood, cherubim, cubit, selvedge, taches, ephod, ouches, mitre, and chapiters, to name the ones I found. So I will spend some time defining these, so as to make reading (hopefully) a little easier:
Ephah: a Hebrew unit of dry measure, equal to about a bushel (35 l).
Matrix: The womb; or something that constitutes the place or point from which something else originates, takes form, or develops
Omer:a Hebrew unit of dry measure, the tenth part of an ephah
Shittim Wood: the wood, probably acacia, of which the ark of the covenant and various parts of the tabernacle were made. Ex. 25, 26.
Cherubim: a member of the second order of angels, often represented as a beautiful rosy-cheeked child with wings
Cubit: an ancient linear unit based on the length of the forearm, from elbow to the tip of the middle finger, usually from 17 to 21 in. (43 to 53 cm)
Selvedge: the edge of woven fabric finished so as to prevent raveling, often in a narrow tape effect, different from the body of the fabric
Tache: a buckle; clasp
Ephod: a richly embroidered, apronlike vestment having two shoulder straps and ornamental attachments for securing the breastplate, worn with a waistband by the high priest. Ex. 28:6, 7, 25–28.
Ouches: a clasp, buckle, or brooch, esp. one worn for ornament; or the setting of a precious stone
Mitre: the official headdress of the ancient high priest, bearing on the front a gold plate engraved with the words Holiness to the Lord. Ex. 28:36–38
Chapiters: The upper part of a column that supports the entablature
Now, I found a couple of the rules of Exodus 22 to be rather odd. The first was this: "And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins." Exodus 22: 16-17.
This is a line that implicitly condones pre-marital sex, but only if you betroth her afterward. And this is only for a maid, or a virgin. So if a woman is not a virgin, then you can sleep with that woman with no consequences (thus far in the Bible). And there does not appear to be a time limit stated, for example "he shall surely endow her to be his wife within the period of seven days, or he shall be put to death." (Punishments are typically mortal in the Bible, so I just added that for good measure). So, in essence, the pre-marital sex rule, up to the point of the end of Exodus, is that it is just fine to do so long as you eventually intend to marry the girl. And dowries are now an archaic practice in the United States, so it's free no matter how you look at it. So pre-marital sex is fine. Just don't spill your seed (Genesis 38: 9-10).
The other rule was this: "Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people." Exodus 22: 28.Why is "gods" plural? This seems rather odd, especially when paired with Exodus 34: 14: "...for thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God." Does he mean angels? Are we to revere angels as gods? I thought the angels had to bow to us? Although, of course, the Bible does contradict itself constantly, and is more a form of oral literature which does not always follow logically, and the logical inconsistencies are merely to be taken in stride.
As for abortion, well, Exodus 21: 22-25 sums that up: "If me strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow, he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." So abortion is allowed so long as the father allows it. So far, anyway.
Ephah: a Hebrew unit of dry measure, equal to about a bushel (35 l).
Matrix: The womb; or something that constitutes the place or point from which something else originates, takes form, or develops
Omer:a Hebrew unit of dry measure, the tenth part of an ephah
Shittim Wood: the wood, probably acacia, of which the ark of the covenant and various parts of the tabernacle were made. Ex. 25, 26.
Cubit: an ancient linear unit based on the length of the forearm, from elbow to the tip of the middle finger, usually from 17 to 21 in. (43 to 53 cm)
Selvedge: the edge of woven fabric finished so as to prevent raveling, often in a narrow tape effect, different from the body of the fabric
Tache: a buckle; clasp
Ephod: a richly embroidered, apronlike vestment having two shoulder straps and ornamental attachments for securing the breastplate, worn with a waistband by the high priest. Ex. 28:6, 7, 25–28.
Mitre: the official headdress of the ancient high priest, bearing on the front a gold plate engraved with the words Holiness to the Lord. Ex. 28:36–38
Chapiters: The upper part of a column that supports the entablature
Now, I found a couple of the rules of Exodus 22 to be rather odd. The first was this: "And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins." Exodus 22: 16-17.
This is a line that implicitly condones pre-marital sex, but only if you betroth her afterward. And this is only for a maid, or a virgin. So if a woman is not a virgin, then you can sleep with that woman with no consequences (thus far in the Bible). And there does not appear to be a time limit stated, for example "he shall surely endow her to be his wife within the period of seven days, or he shall be put to death." (Punishments are typically mortal in the Bible, so I just added that for good measure). So, in essence, the pre-marital sex rule, up to the point of the end of Exodus, is that it is just fine to do so long as you eventually intend to marry the girl. And dowries are now an archaic practice in the United States, so it's free no matter how you look at it. So pre-marital sex is fine. Just don't spill your seed (Genesis 38: 9-10).
The other rule was this: "Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people." Exodus 22: 28.Why is "gods" plural? This seems rather odd, especially when paired with Exodus 34: 14: "...for thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God." Does he mean angels? Are we to revere angels as gods? I thought the angels had to bow to us? Although, of course, the Bible does contradict itself constantly, and is more a form of oral literature which does not always follow logically, and the logical inconsistencies are merely to be taken in stride.
As for abortion, well, Exodus 21: 22-25 sums that up: "If me strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow, he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." So abortion is allowed so long as the father allows it. So far, anyway.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Elements of Literature in the Bible
Although I have been reading the Bible for going on a month, I am always surprised to find elements of oral literature. The repetition, the inconsistencies in logic, the poetic nature of it; all point to these stories being, at one time, part of the oral tradition. And not just that, but they were also part of the same story. The repetition of seven and forty, tricking Abimelech thrice with the use of "she's my sister," the repetition of lines, etc., just gets to me. Not to mention, the etiological elements, such as rainbows and painful childbirths, irk me because it's obvious that no one actually tried to find a real cause for them; or, if they did, they were called heretics. Like Copernicus. Or Galileo.
Now, perhaps Bibles were always to be spoken aloud and recited, but if not, then why does it sound so much like someone just sat down and wrote the oral version, without editing it? You would think that after three thousand years, one of the editors (J, P, D, E, or R) would have thought, Hey, let's make this a little more readable, and change the narrative to one that sounds as if it should be read, not spoken. Though I guess that's just wishful thinking. The repetitive nature is simply becoming annoying, I guess.
I've started into the Exodus' Thou shalt not's, and I think I've come across an idea for reading it. I put some sort of beat behind it, and read it as a rap. It helped with the "generations" parts too. Seeing as how most of it is in pentameter, it's working rather well. I might try putting on some Kid Cudi on behind it, and see how much easier it is to read. I'll probably just end up turning up the Kid Cudi and listening to that, but perhaps I'll become engrossed in the repetitive lines of the Bible. Hopefully.
Something that interested me was the beginning of Genesis chapter 4: "This is the book of the generations of Adam..." Why is that single chapter being referred to as a book? Or is it referring to all of Genesis? I do believe that it is referring simply to that chapter. So why do we not refer to each chapter as a "book", and each book as a "tome" or "volume" or some such equivalent? It just made me think.
To add to the list of things the Bible is obsessed with:
1. Anthropomorphism (or the reverse of that: ascribing animalistic traits to a human)
2. Revenge: karma always comes back and bites you in the ass, even if it's a generation removed.
3. Whine a little to someone with more influence than you, and you'll get whatever you want.
4. Business transactions.
Good life lessons.
Now, perhaps Bibles were always to be spoken aloud and recited, but if not, then why does it sound so much like someone just sat down and wrote the oral version, without editing it? You would think that after three thousand years, one of the editors (J, P, D, E, or R) would have thought, Hey, let's make this a little more readable, and change the narrative to one that sounds as if it should be read, not spoken. Though I guess that's just wishful thinking. The repetitive nature is simply becoming annoying, I guess.
I've started into the Exodus' Thou shalt not's, and I think I've come across an idea for reading it. I put some sort of beat behind it, and read it as a rap. It helped with the "generations" parts too. Seeing as how most of it is in pentameter, it's working rather well. I might try putting on some Kid Cudi on behind it, and see how much easier it is to read. I'll probably just end up turning up the Kid Cudi and listening to that, but perhaps I'll become engrossed in the repetitive lines of the Bible. Hopefully.
Something that interested me was the beginning of Genesis chapter 4: "This is the book of the generations of Adam..." Why is that single chapter being referred to as a book? Or is it referring to all of Genesis? I do believe that it is referring simply to that chapter. So why do we not refer to each chapter as a "book", and each book as a "tome" or "volume" or some such equivalent? It just made me think.
To add to the list of things the Bible is obsessed with:
1. Anthropomorphism (or the reverse of that: ascribing animalistic traits to a human)
2. Revenge: karma always comes back and bites you in the ass, even if it's a generation removed.
3. Whine a little to someone with more influence than you, and you'll get whatever you want.
4. Business transactions.
Good life lessons.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Genesis 1-12
When I first read the Bible, I had problems with it. It tends to contradict itself in very obvious ways. For example, Genesis 1 and 2. They have different accounts of creation. Which makes me pause, because you'd think creation should at least only have one tale regarding it. However, I read an interesting introduction to this new Bible here, and it suggests to look past the tale to look for meaning, and so that is what I will be doing, rather than pointing out contradictions. EEEEHnyway...
So far, I have learned several things:
Half of Genesis is very interested in young men, and who their fathers were. Or, more specifically, their lineage.
1. God hates vegetarians. Cain is spurned for his offering of "the fruit of the ground", while Abel is praised for his offering from his flock. Also, Jehovah forbid Adam and Eve from eating a fruit. Knowledge of Good and Evil, indeed. Rather, knowledge of good fruit.
2. Women are only mentioned if they were really hot or really gullible or really evil. We have discussed this a bit in class, with Lot's wife and daughters, Sarai (who so far up through Genesis 12 has simply been hot, though she supposedly becomes a little more evil later on), Eve, etc., being in one of these categories. Maybe this trend will change as we continue.
3. Nakedness is to be avoided in public. Not just for you, but for others as well. Ham's family is forced into slavery because he saw Noah naked. Poor Ham.
On a more serious note, I recall a book I once read that treated the creation story(ies) as an allegory of two societies, one of the hunter/gatherer society and one of the more civilized agricultural society. It was an excellent book, though the premise was a little weird (a telepathic gorilla is one of the main characters). It was called "Ishmael." I'll post a link for it, hopefully it'll spur some interest for you:
http://books.google.com/books?id=83p-OMrNalYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=ishmael&hl=en&ei=EzSJTNGYA5S6sQPxq8DMCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
To all my devoted fans, good luck and happy hunting.
So far, I have learned several things:
Half of Genesis is very interested in young men, and who their fathers were. Or, more specifically, their lineage.
1. God hates vegetarians. Cain is spurned for his offering of "the fruit of the ground", while Abel is praised for his offering from his flock. Also, Jehovah forbid Adam and Eve from eating a fruit. Knowledge of Good and Evil, indeed. Rather, knowledge of good fruit.
2. Women are only mentioned if they were really hot or really gullible or really evil. We have discussed this a bit in class, with Lot's wife and daughters, Sarai (who so far up through Genesis 12 has simply been hot, though she supposedly becomes a little more evil later on), Eve, etc., being in one of these categories. Maybe this trend will change as we continue.
3. Nakedness is to be avoided in public. Not just for you, but for others as well. Ham's family is forced into slavery because he saw Noah naked. Poor Ham.
On a more serious note, I recall a book I once read that treated the creation story(ies) as an allegory of two societies, one of the hunter/gatherer society and one of the more civilized agricultural society. It was an excellent book, though the premise was a little weird (a telepathic gorilla is one of the main characters). It was called "Ishmael." I'll post a link for it, hopefully it'll spur some interest for you:
http://books.google.com/books?id=83p-OMrNalYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=ishmael&hl=en&ei=EzSJTNGYA5S6sQPxq8DMCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
To all my devoted fans, good luck and happy hunting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)