After a 10 month hiatus I am finally back to this project. I went through another rough patch with my mental and emotional health, but I finally feel like I have come back to the surface after being underwater. Let's get back to Genesis. I am picking back up in Genesis chapter 5.
Chapter 5 is all genealogy. Genealogy passages are difficult to get through for me, and this was no exception, but something I know now that I didn't know before is the purpose they serve. The point of the Bible, contrary to a commonly held misbelief, is not to be a rule book for how to live. The overarching narrative of the bible is to tell the story of how Jesus fulfills the covenant promise that God made to Abraham. This covenant was that God would bless all the nations through Abraham's family. These genealogies from chapter 5 (and all the others that I know are coming) are laying the foundation to be able to trace the genealogy of Jesus to Abraham's family line. That itself is actually kind of cool to me, but yikes, these are still really boring to read in and of themselves. Something that did catch my eye was that Noah (of Noah's ark fame) was born to a man named Lamech. It made me wonder if this is the same Lamech who the video for day one's material points out for being violent and the first polygamist. A quick google search tells me this is not the case. Two different Lamechs. It was also really bizarre to consider the life spans of the people written about in the book of Genesis as they were absurdly long.
Chapter 6 begins really weirdly, Verses 1-4 is a perfect example of the type of passage that has always given me a lot of trouble. In these types of passages, I read the words on the page and just feel like I must not actually speak English or something. The sentence structure is just plain awkward. Additionally, these types of passages use words and phrases that are just not common knowledge any more. In this particular passage, there is zero context to give me any sort of idea who or what these "sons of God" or "Nephilim" are. Historically, reading these types passages makes me feel like I am just missing some key piece of information that would make it easier to understand what the passage is talking about and why its important enough to be here. In the past, this kind of confusion would frustrate me and I would just give up and walk away. However, I really do not want to do that this time. I might take 10 month hiatuses every now and then ;-) but I am determined to see this project to the end. I am so thankful to have these bible project videos to watch as I read, because these two phrases were specifically mentioned in back in day one's video.
Coincidentally enough, about 3 months ago, I actually heard a fascinating lecture that included information on the sons of God and the Nephilim, and it was one of the most interesting lectures I have ever heard. The lecture was about how in our present day time and culture we have mostly lost any appreciation for or belief in the reality of the spiritual realm. This heavily influences the way we read and interpret scriptures because they were written to an audience that understood certain concepts and phrases and references. The speaker gave some historical context and then traced a theme through out the old and new testament in light of the information he presented. It was so cool to really see and understand the connections he made. He heavily recommended a book that he used as reference material and we did purchase it from Amazon. Joey has read some of it but I haven't yet.
Immediately following those weird first four verses is a pretty widely known story that carries through to the end of chapter 7. I think most people regardless of religious background have probably heard the story of Noah taking all the animals two by two into the ark until the flood waters receded. I have seen many a poster in children's class rooms of the ark with all the animals. There is even a fisher-price Noah's ark toy. Overall, the imagery used is usually pretty light-hearted. It wasn't until recently that I realized how bizarre that actually is. I never really thought much of this story until I had a child of my own and I started reading him the Jesus Storybook Bible at night before bed. When we got to this story, I was just overcome by thinking about what it would have been like to have drowned in the flood, and that thought has sorted of haunted me ever since. I am really hoping maybe there will be a future video that will help me digest this story more.
Within the story of Noah, we have again what appears to be a contradiction. In Chapter 6, God tells Noah to bring two of every animal with him, but then in chapter 7 he tells Noah to bring the animals by seven pairs. I googled, and this is a popular question. There were a LOT of results. Apparently, one pair was to help that species repopulate the earth, and the extra animals were for sacrificing after the flood had ended. I came across a statement that basically said because it doesn't say "take ONLY one pair" in one place and "take seven pairs" in another, its not really a contradiction. Technically I can agree that is true, but I think anyone would have to agree, that it is still odd.
Another note about the way this particular scripture is written - Chapter 7 is incredibly repetitive. I kept feeling my eyes kind of glazing over as I read it. I kept waiting to come to some new information and when it was just a slightly different rehashing of the same information I thought, I must have read this wrong, and go back and do it again. No, it basically repeats the exact same details with slightly different sentences. I have heard that when something is repeated its usually for emphasis because its important. But I really don't understand why these particular details in this particular passage would be that important?
Something that does stick out to me about this story that I have never really pondered before is the fact that God didn't entirely wipe out everything. He chose to take a representative population of each animal (and one family of humans) to repopulate rather than starting from scratch. I feel like it wasn't probably wasn't because he was just feeling lazy and didn't want to go through the hassle of making everything a second time. I think his choice for repopulating over recreating has a point to prove so to speak. The world didn't go badly because he did a bad job creating everything. He didn't say, "Whooops! Gotta go back to the drawing board and tweak a thing or two". When things went bad it was because humans made bad choices, not because creation had fundamental design flaws.
Unlike the video from day 1, I wasn't really sure what to expect from this video just from its title. But just like the video from day 1, I really enjoyed it. I feel like I learned a little something about ancient cultures and civilizations that gives me more context to view scripture through. Also, like the first one, this video leaves me with a peaceful sense of God's goodness and love for *all* people. I also appreciated the subtle, but humorous uses of cats and a Furby. Something I had never really thought about before watching this video is that no one should make images of God because God has already made images of himself. This video gave me a deep sense of just how vast and complex God really is. Collectively, all humans make up the image of God. To me, this means that not only can he not be reduced to one single thing in creation as they said in the video, but it actually takes all 7 billion-ish people alive right now, plus all the people who lived before, plus everyone who hasn't even been born yet, to even approximate his image. When you consider just how complex a single person is, that is mind blowing. I also really appreciated that the video clearly conveyed that all people are seen equally in God's eyes. There is no group of people that is elevated above others. Regardless of any personal characteristics, and even if someone ends up making bad choices, all people are made in the image of God. Therefore, we all have the same baseline value and worth. Because of my own life experiences, I am very leery of heavy-handed guilt, fear, or shame tactics. At the same time, I do not want to swing the pendulum so far in the other direction that I lose sight of biblical truth. That is a another reason why I loved this video. I think it does a great job of demonstrating how and why humanity falls short without making me fall back into the world view of God being an angry dictator. Contrary to what some people might think, not everything about humanity is bad, and I shouldn't feel badly for thinking that way. Humans are capable of good, and even amazing things when we get it right, but the proclivity towards caring about ourselves above others means we do get a lot of things wrong, and sometimes make choices that cause harm to others.
---
Day two scripture (Genesis 4-7) covers the story of Cain and Abel, and begins the story of Noah and the flood.
Chapter 4 starts with the story of Cain and Abel. Right out of the gate, verse one gave me pause. What exactly did Eve mean by her declaration when she gave birth to Cain in verse 1? My initial reading of this verse was from the English Standard Version (ESV), and it did not sit well with me at all. "Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, "I have gotten a man with the help of the Lord." I wasn't sure why, but I was left with the sense that she was saying she got exactly what she wanted, specifically, a boy and not a girl; and that God was complicit in her valuing a boy over a girl. As I am writing this, I just keep being overcome with the feeling that this is a question I would have a hard time discussing with people in real life. I just keep picturing how some people might respond to what I just wrote with internally, or even externally, rolling their eyes at me, and labeling me as a liberal feminazi who is offended by everything and over analyses everything with the intent to make men look bad. That would make me very flustered and uncomfortable, and I would not do a good job engaging with that person. The end result would be me feeling discouraged and very angry for lots of reasons. Even though that scenario is entirely made up in my head, I think it speaks to the kind of culture we live in right now that I would even imagine such a scenario. This makes me glad for this semi-private piece of the internet where I can work through my thoughts without judgement. Or at least have time to craft a response perchance some one leaves a harsh comment.
To get back to the point, while working my way through the bible I really want to do my best to not be blind to any bias I might have. Given that I graduated from a Women's college, and I am a woman living in the United States in 2018 where gender equality is a hot button issue, I recognized that it was possible I was misinterpreting or maybe over-interpreting something. I read the verse in four additional translations to see if there was any difference in them like there was with verb tenses in the creation story from Genesis chapter 2. As I read each translation and mulled it over, I was more able to make sense of why this verse was off-putting to me. I read the King James version next, and it puts the verse like this: "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, 'I have gotten a man from the Lord.'" Reading this translation didn't bother me quite as much. Saying "...from the Lord" seemed more like a matter-of-fact statement that God gave her a child that happened to be male, where as "...with the help of the Lord" comes across as God helped her achieve her goal of specifically having boy and not a girl. The third translation I read was The Message which puts the verse as "Adam slept with Eve his wife. She conceived and had Cain. She said, 'I’ve gotten a man, with God’s help!'” While this translation is very similar to the ESV it didn't register quite as offensively to me either. This translation seems more like she is acknowledging God's role in the child's existence rather than expressing gratitude for the child being male. I am not sure if that distinction would make sense to anyone else, but it feels like a nuance to me. Honestly, it could be that I read this translation differently than the ESV because I read it after the KJV, which put me in a place to read this in a more open-minded way. It could also be that using that comma just really makes a difference in how I perceive the statement.
Reading the fourth translation (The Amplified Bible) is where I felt I made some traction in understanding my thoughts. "Now the man Adam knew Eve as his wife, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, 'I have obtained a man (baby boy, son) with the help of the Lord.'" My reaction to reading this was interesting to me. This translation was written exactly the same as the ESV except it says "obtained" instead of "gotten" and it just doesn't bother me as much. This made me consider that perhaps the word "gotten" caused some of the trouble for me. For some reason, to me, "gotten" gives off the impression of winning a prize or something, it is as though it bestows a sense of value to the thing that was "got". "Obtained" seems more matter-of-fact, and it doesn't seem to impart value, I guess? Reading this translation also helped me see that calling Cain, who was just born, a man also contributed to my reaction. I didn't think about this consciously until I read this translation put baby boy or son in parentheses, but saying "I have gotten a man..." feels like she bypassed the joy of simply having a child and went straight to the value of this child growing up into a man rather than into a woman. I think that is the root of my initial interpretation and my misgivings. The last translation I read was the New Living Translation: "Now Adam (Or the man) had sexual relations with his wife, Eve, and she became pregnant. When she gave birth to Cain, she said, 'With the Lord’s help, I have produced (Or I have acquired) a man!'" Out of 5 translations, this one reads the best to me. To me, this reads as though she is acknowledging that she was able to give birth because of God (as he is the giver of life) and the child she happened to produce was male. Thinking about this last translation also gave me the idea that perhaps the choice to translate this verse using the word man was a result of what the written Hebrew language was like at the time it was originally written? The end result of all my thinking is that I believe my feelings about this verse are valid, but I should try to look past them. Even though that interpretation makes sense to me through a modern western lens, I really don't think that's what the author was trying to convey. More importantly, this verse is really not the point of this story anyway. This sort of tempts me to feel like what I just wrote was a waste of time. I just have to remind myself that the point of this blog is to give myself some space to really think through and flesh out anything that comes up as I read scripture. So with that in mind, the main purpose of this blog is being fulfilled and its not a waste of my time. As a side note, I personally was so relieved to learn my child was male. Not because I think he has more value to me as a grown man than a daughter, but because I feel like raising a son is easier to do in our current culture. To me, it seems less daunting to teach my one son how to treat all people, but especially all women, with respect than to prepare my one daughter for how she should handle being disrespected by most men. And that is sad. To pick things back up in Genesis chapter 4, the story of Cain and Abel is just sort of weird. Cain, a farmer, gives God a gift of fruits from his harvest. Abel, his younger brother and a shepherd, brings God a gift too - specifically the first born of his flock. The translations all describe God's reaction to their gifts with different words. God regarded/respected/accepted/liked Abel's gifts, and did not regard/respect/accept/like Cain's. When God does not accept his gift Cain gets angry, and after that Cain kills Abel. When God asks Cain where Abel is, Cain and gets sassy about it to avoid saying he killed him. As punishment Cain is cursed to never get good crops from the ground that took up Abel's blood and from then on, he must be a homeless wanderer. Cain is worried that he will be killed, but God puts a mark on him so that he will be protected. (4:2-16) At first, before he kills Abel, I actually felt a little sorry for Cain. I was actually tempted to find fault with God at that point in the story. I could understand God liking Abel's gift better, but to not like the gift Cain brought at all? When I unpacked that thought I realized it was because I was taught to appreciate any gift I am given even if I don't really like it because it is the thought that counts. Then it clicked. Unlike Abel's gift that was given out of sacrifice, there was no thought behind Cain's gift. If I am totally honest, I also don't like it when people give me a generic gift out of some perceived obligation rather than because they want to give me a gift. With that in mind, I can't really blame God for not liking that kind of behavior either. I also wasn't really sure what to make of God's response to Abel being mad that his gift wasn't well received. God responded to Cain's anger by saying "'Why are you so angry?'... 'Why do you look so dejected? You will be accepted if you do what is right. But if you refuse to do what is right, then watch out! Sin is crouching at the door, eager to control you. But you must subdue it and be its master.'” (4:7, NLT)
In particular, the statement "You will be accepted if you do what is right" gives me pause. I am just not sure what to make of this statement. It is the exact opposite of what the Gospel of Jesus teaches, namely, that we cannot earn salvation through our own good works. We can only have salvation by faith in the sacrifice Jesus made on our behalf. After thinking about it I figured, well, this happened before the life and death of Jesus so this isn't actually a contradiction. Then I realized I actually don't really know anything about the relationship between people and God at this point. I know eventually God is going to make a covenant with Abraham that he will use Abraham's family to reconcile all people back to God, and I know that eventually a set of laws will be given to the people of Israel that dictate how they need to live including sacrifices to atone for sins, and I know that Jesus (a direct descendant of Abraham) ultimately fulfills the covenant that God made with Abraham to reconcile all people back to God. But this story of Cain and Abel happens way before any of that happens. I am just going to accept that I just don't have enough information to read into this scripture with any certainty. Something about this passage that is reassuring even in the midst of not fully understanding every single verse, is the fact that God didn't punish Cain until he killed Abel. All he did was not accept his gift. And whats more, he actually gave Cain advice to try to keep him from killing Abel. Even after Cain kills Abel, God shows Cain undeserved grace by marking him in a way that no one would murder Cain as he did Abel. This is reminiscent of the undeserved grace Adam and Eve got when they were sent out from the Garden. The next few verses (4:17-24) include a partial genealogy of Cain's descendants that ends with Lamech who was mentioned in the video from day one. He is the first guy mentioned to have multiple wives, and he is not only very violent, but also extremely arrogant. But something that stood out to me was even though he was a "bad guy", his children contributed a lot of good things to society. One was the first to be a migratory shepherd, one invented the flute and harp, and the other was an expert at forging tools of bronze and iron. The chapter wraps up with the birth of Seth (4:25-26), a mention of his direct descendant Enosh (4:27) and a very odd statement: "At that time people first began to worship the Lord by name." I don't really understand what that is supposed to mean. Did people not worship God before? Did they worship God but not know his name? I have no idea, but this doesn't particularly bother me so I don't feel the need to try to find an answer. Seeing how much I had to say on just chapter 4, I have decided to stop here, and pick up the rest of the day two material in my next post.
I liked this video a lot. I think a lot of people, myself included, tend to have a world view that the whole purpose of life is for people to adhere to an impossibly high standard, forsaking anything pleasurable or fun, just to keep God happy, and that the bible is a huge book of rules to follow to accomplish that goal. If you mess up (aka participate in a sinful act) then God is disappointed, or angry, or maybe even hates you depending on how big your mess up is.
I do not like the idea of that kind of life or God. None of us asks to be born. We just show up and have to deal with the consequence of being alive. This world view just makes me feel like a pawn in a game I never asked to play, and that I can't possibly win. Thankfully, this world view is wrong, and this video does a great job explaining why.
The point of life is to harness all the wonderful potential of the world and help it to flourish. We were meant to discover all the wonders of the universe and cultivate the world on God's behalf. However, when given the chance, humans chose to seek autonomy, or as the video says, to define good and evil for ourselves. This makes everything spiral out of control. Thankfully, God is determined to rescue the world and restore all relationships - our relationships with each other and our relationships with God. The Bible is not the list of rules we have to follow to get back in his good graces. Rather, it serves to tell the story of how God is restoring the world and humanity to what it was meant to be.
This is a God I want to know more about, and watching this video makes me glad I decided to start this project.
---
Today's scripture (Genesis 1-3) covers two main topics: The creation story and what is commonly known as "the fall of man".
The Creation Story
In Genesis 1:1-27 God made the heavens and the earth over the course of 6 days
Day 1: Light, day and night (1:3-5)
Day 2: Sky (1:6-8)
Day 3: Dry land and vegetation (1:9-13)
Day 4: Sun, moon and stars (1:14-18)
Day 5: Fish, other water life, and birds (1:19-23)
Day 6: Animals (1:24-25) and humans (1:26-27)
Humans were made in the image of God and were supposed to be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and govern it, and eat only seed bearing plants and tree fruit (1:26-31). This is interesting to me - when did eating animal meat become an OK thing to do?
In Chapter 2 God rests and blesses the 7th day and declares it to be holy (2:1-4). Then Chapter 2 gives more detail about the creation story:
1. There was no vegetation on the earth and there was no rain only underground springs (2:5-6)
2. God formed a man out of the dust (2:7)
3. God plants a garden and puts the man in it (2:8-17)
4. God lets the man name all the animals and he calls himself Adam (2:18-20)
5. God makes a helper out of Adam's rib and Adam names her Woman (2:21-23)
So at first glance, it looks like the order of creation is contradictory here, and a quick google search suggests I am not the only person to notice that. Apparently, the Hebrew word used in chapter 1 is used to describe vegetation that grows wild, and the word used in chapter 2 is used for vegetation that is cultivated - so God planting a Garden was something new in addition to the wild vegetation he made previously - so that's not a contradiction. I can get behind that.
The order of animals vs humans is a little harder for me. Apparently, the verb tense you choose when you translate the Hebrew verb that was being used to describe how God made things makes a huge difference. When it is translated in the plurperfect tense it doesn't sound contradictory, but when it is translated in the perfect tense it does sound contradictory. That is a passable enough answer for me, personally. However, I do not like that there is an opportunity for this to be an issue for anyone. Why wasn't it just always translated in the plurperfect tense when the Bible was first translated? I am thinking that its possible language has evolved since then, and that the plurperfect tense just wasn't an option at the time. But I am not a language historian so who knows. Are language historians even a thing? Also, while I am on this thought train: do all languages and dialects even have a plurperfect tense nowadays?
In 2:24-25 the woman helper is now called his wife. Verse 24 seems sort of out of place. It is not a complete non-sequitur because it is related, but it doesn't fit the flow of the rest of the section. This isn't really an issue for me - it is just kind of weird.
Human Rebellion aka "The fall of Man"
Genesis chapter 3 is where everything just goes down hill. The serpent convinces the woman that it is a good idea to eat the fruit (3:1-5). I am not sure why everyone seems to think she ate an apple. It is just called fruit. The woman eats some, and she gives some to Adam who also eats it. They now have the knowledge of good and evil. They realize they are naked; so they make loincloths from leaves and hide from each other (3:6-7).
In 3:8-13 they have to tell God what happened. A question I had as I was reading this the first time was why didn't Adam and the woman die as soon as God walked into their presence the way God told Moses he would die if he saw God's face on Mt. Sinai (Exodus 33:20). An answer I found online was that this was God "the pre-incarnate son" rather than God "the father". They suggest this because in John 1:18 Jesus says no one other than him has seen the father at any time. But, on the second time reading through it I noticed that Adam and the woman did hide from God's presence, so this could also explain it. Moses was able to see the back of God and not die, so I guess its only an issue if you look at him straight on.
In 3:14-19 God explains the consequences for the serpent, the woman, and Adam. I have read these scriptures before, but I never really thought anything past, man that sucks and I hate that. But this time, since I have experienced a religious thought-induced mental breakdown, have been married for nearly 9 years and have given birth I have significantly more thoughts.
The Serpent (Genesis 2:14-15)
First of all - if I hadn't watched the video I would not have gotten the "wounded victor" concept from the scripture. A bruised head doesn't sound like a fatal blow to me. That said, I did really like the way the video explained it.
Second of all - If God is determined to redeem his creation as they said in the video, then why could the serpent not be redeemed too? Why did it have to be destroyed? The best answer I could come up with is this: The video makes the case that rebellion against God paved the way for evil to enter the world. We now have a natural inclination to define good and evil in a way that benefits us over others. Adam and Eve were led into rebellion by that serpent, but no one led the serpent into rebellion. This leads me to consider the serpent to be a "root" of rebellion. You can redeem individual people and reconcile them to God, but as long as that root is there, it will continue to corrupt new people. This is like bailing water out of a boat without fixing the hole. So, that's the difference between people and the serpent. The root has to be destroyed to keep it from leading new people into rebellion. I realize this is a very flimsy answer, but its the best I have, and its enough for me right now.
The Woman (Genesis 2:16)
A. "I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children"
Before watching the video, this has always seemed so weird and unfair to me. At surface level the scripture comes across as though the pain is a punishment made out of anger. It would be easy to read it and think that God is saying, "you disobeyed me, so now your punishment is terrible physical pain". But that doesn't seem right to me. Now, after watching the video, I think that this pain serves a deeper purpose.
First, I do not think this only applies to the physical pain of childbirth, but also to the emotional pain that comes with raising children. Childbirth was absolutely the most excruciating physical pain I have ever felt. Trying to become a mother and having two miscarriages, and being a mother who struggles with anxiety for my child's wellbeing has caused me a lot of emotional pain too. I think that the pain, physical or emotional, could serve as a tangible reminder of the pain that God feels from being separated from his children. I do not think that it is a revengeful "tit for tat" or "you hurt me so I will hurt you" punishment. Rather, I think that the deeper purpose is that this pain can be used to draw us back to God.
Let's not overlook the obvious. The physical pain comes at the time when we are physically separated from the child we have shared existence with for nine long months. Emotional pain comes from multiple places: anxiety over possible harm than can come while temporarily separated from our children, the horrific possibility of being separated by death, and the depression that results from a fractured relationship that keeps our children distant or altogether absent.
My view of sin is that it all boils down to two lies: God doesn't really love us and therefore we should trust ourselves more than we trust God. God's deepest desire is that we would come to realize those lies for what they are and for our relationship to be restored to what it was meant to be. If I am right, that this pain is a clue to how God feels at being separated from his children, then how deep is his love for us to feel that pain and still want to fix our relationship when it was our choice to break it? I want to know a God that loves me like that. Don't get me wrong - childbirth pain still sucks. Emotional pain? That still sucks too. But the idea of a God who just doles out pain for no reason other than for vengeful punishment sucks more.
B. "Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you."
ooooooooh boy. Here is a red hot issue: Gender Equality. Lord, have mercy. I can feel people picking up their pitchforks, and I haven't even said anything yet.
In the context of the story, I can understand why this would happen. The woman was the one who ate the fruit, so it would make sense that she is the one who would be put under the rule of the husband. I honestly believe that if it had been Adam who ate the fruit first then it would be the other way around. HOWEVER, I do know that this scripture is grossly abused.
I think I will start with what I think this scripture does NOT mean. First of all, this scripture only applies in the context of a marriage. No random man, non-husband significant other (boyfriend, fiancee, etc), male relative, or male dominated entity, organization or government has the authority to tell anyone to do or to not do anything just because she is a woman. I am not a bible scholar, but I would bet my left foot and right butt cheek that I am right about that. Secondly, even within a marriage this scripture does not mean that a husband gets to lord over and micromanage his wife's life. Finally, this scripture certainly does not mean a husband can abuse his wife in any way, shape, or form.
This is what I think this scripture does mean: when a husband and wife need to make a decision that will affect the family as a whole, the husband has the authority to make the final decision, even if it is contrary to the wife's desire. This scripture does not mean that the wife is a doormat who doesn't get to voice her opinions. This scripture does not mean the husband and wife will never agree on anything. This scripture does not mean that the husband has the authority to choose things that only benefit him or to purposefully anger his wife. To borrow a phrase, with great power comes great responsibility. The husband's responsibility is to make decisions that will promote peace and justice for the family, and to help the members of the family have a healthy relationship with each other and with God.
Now, husbands are sinful people. They are going to make mistakes; some on accident and some on purpose. Does this scripture mean that a wife just has to sit by and let her husband abuse this scripture? Nope! Life is not meant to be lived in a vacuum. Life is lived in community. The wife absolutely has the right to reach out to others in her community when she feels the husband is not living up to his responsibility. The first key is for the wife to be wise in who she reaches out to for help. The second key would be to reach out in humility, not in anger or for the purpose of embarrassing her husband out of revenge.
Adam (Genesis 2:17-19)
To be honest, I don't really have much to say about this scripture. There isn't anything particularly upsetting to me about it. However, I will say that if anyone tries to pretend that epidurals for childbirth are sinful, they better also take issue with automatic farm equipment and the 40 hour work week. ;-)
What happens next strikes me as a little funny. In Genesis 2:23, Adam chose to call the helper "woman" because he wanted it known that she came from him. Now in chapter 3:20 Adam changes her name to Eve or "the mother of all who live". It seems as though because sin has entered the world, and he blames her for it (Genesis 3:12) he doesn't want to be so closely associated with her. And, by renaming her Eve any blame for people can be on her shoulders instead of his own.
The rest of the chapter is just full of undeserved kindness. Adam and Eve rebelled because they thought they could do life better with their own ideas. When they were embarrassed of being naked, the best they could do was cover up their genitals with leaves, but God made them full outfits out of skins (3:21) If God was really just about punishing people for breaking rules then he wouldn't have given them an upgrade. He would have snatched leaves away and told them to create their own vegetation from scratch.
When I had read Genesis 3:22-24 previously, I read it as though Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden as a punishment because the garden was only for people who behave themselves. More importantly, I read it as though God kicked them out because He was afraid that if they ate from the tree of life then they really would be like God (all knowing and eternal); and that's not allowed because God wants to be special. I don't get that sense anymore. I see this as another undeserved kindness. God knew that people would be miserable, and he didn't want them to live forever being miserable.
OK. So to wrap things up: Today's material has changed my view of God and sin. Yes, there are sinful actions: stealing, lying, cheating etc. But, now I think that I understand sin to be an inward human condition that compels us to engage in sinful actions. To me, sin can be boiled down to the human tendency to care about yourself over others. It comes from the idea that God doesn't really love us, and therefore we have to take care of ourselves rather than to trust God. And people will do anything to secure their prosperity.
I have always imaged that God hates sin the way a parent hates when a child breaks a rule. I don't think that's right anymore either. When a child breaks a rule like "don't eat cookies before dinner" they haven't irreparably broken their relationship with their parents. Sin is more serious than that. Sin (the human condition) keeps God's children away from him because they believe something about him that isn't even true so they run in the opposite direction. If something kept my child from me, I would hate that thing too.
Now, don't let what I just said paint a picture that I suddenly have all my issues figured out. Wouldn't that be nice? Oh, no I still have plenty of unanswered questions. Why did God create the serpent to begin with? Why didn't God destroy the serpent before it could lead people into rebellion? Why did God take thousands of years to enact his plan to redeem the world and repair our relationships? If his plan was successful then why is pain and suffering still a thing? Why does God let anyone go to Hell still? Oh, the questions could go on forever, But, for now I am choosing to be thankful for what I have learned from today's material, and I am hoping to learn more as I continue in my project.
For as long as I can remember, when I hear anyone say how much they love the Bible because "it teaches me something new every time I read it!" or "It never fails to bring my spirits up" or "I just randomly open it up and it tells me what I need to know!" etc., this is me on the inside:
But like any other person who doesn't want to feel awkward I don't have that outward response. I either remove myself from the conversation, change the subject, or sit there feeling awkward while others engage around me.
Where Christian doctrine is concerned, from my vantage point anyway, the world seems to be made up of these types of people:
1. People who are equally antagonistic towards all religions and their texts.
2. People who don't particularly care for any organized religion but are particularly vocal about their opinions of the Bible.
3. People who personally don't give two poots either way about any religious texts, the Bible included.
4. People who say they believe in the bible but secretly don't actually know what's in it.
5. People who say they love the Bible and know what's in it, but they express it in a way that is without regard for the feelings of others
6. People who love the Bible, understand the meaning of whats in it, and express it in a way that is so lovely and draws people in
And then you have people like me.
7. People who wish they could love the bible - but just can't.
I openly acknowledge that I ascribe to the Christian faith. BUT. I have a lot of reservations, a generous amount of doubts and even some straight up dislike all wrapped up in excessive emotional baggage. At best, reading the Bible just leaves me feeling confused. Sometimes I even feel like I just must not actually speak English. At worst, thanks to pure O OCD, it leaves me terrified. More often then not, when I read the bible, I am left with a bad taste in my mouth, and I don't know what to do about it.
To make an extremely long story short, I fell victim to extreme anxiety and depression in the fall semester of my sophomore year of high school. I was incredibly high functioning but also incredibly miserable.
Every day.
For 10 years.
At the beginning of 2014 I had a wonderful break where I felt like a normal human. At the end of 2015, a particularly horrific year for the Krakowiaks, my depression began slowly creeping back. In 2016 my anxiety returned so suddenly and with such force that I felt like my brain exploded, and I had a legit mental break down. I would go 60 (yes, thats six - zero) hours without sleeping, get 2 hours of restless sleep and then go another 24 or more hours without a single wink. I lost 10 pounds that I didn't need to lose. I would sit in a fetal position in the corner and cry until I lost the ability to produce tears. After 5 weeks of this nonsense I was diagnosed with pure O OCD. Thanks to medication, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), counseling, and support from my friends and family I am now able to manage my symptoms.
I have lots of triggers, but the ones that have caused me the most trouble are intrusive religious thoughts. The thoughts that made me lose my mind in 2016 were:
1. Because I wasn't willing to let myself or my husband be brutally tortured or killed in order to tell people about Jesus, then God must hate me.
2. If God hates me then there is nothing I could do to avoid going to Hell
3. I am one wrong step away from dying and suffering physical and mental anguish for the rest of all eternity.
That was all I thought about, and nothing I did could get those thoughts out of my head. All I allowed myself to do was read the Bible or sermon transcripts. Because my brain was literally insane at the time, everything I read in the bible just reinforced those intrusive thoughts. But the intrusive thoughts only reinforced that all I was allowed to do was read the Bible. (oh, hello there, Obsessive Thoughts; I'd like you to meet Compulsive Behavior!). This is what I meant earlier when I said the Bible can leave me terrified.
The best tool I learned in CBT is a four step process:
1. Identify the thought that is troubling you
2. Consider how you usually respond
3. Identify a truthful statement to combat the troubling thought
4. Consider how you can choose to respond in light of the truthful statement.
So when I experience an intrusive religious thought, I need a truthful religious statement to train my brain to not lose its mind again. But where do Christians look for truthful religious statements? The Bible. But Michelle, didn't you just say that the Bible is a significant source of your intrusive thoughts? Yes, yes I did. See my predicament?
For well over a year I was too afraid to open a bible, and talking about my fear of scripture would bring me to tears. I knew that I wasn't thinking rationally when I was in the OCD spiral that sent me over the edge, but I was so afraid that I would send myself back into a crisis if I wasn't careful. I just didn't trust my brain to behave itself. More recently I decided that I am tired of being a slave to my fear of the Bible. I decided that I would start reading the bible but keep a written log of my questions and feelings. The key was to leave some space so that I could do some research for truth statements to combat any bad feelings, and write them side by side.
Two weeks ago, I started reading with a purple pen and a floral print journal that says "Faith plants the seed, Love makes it grow". Because I am an adult and I do what I want.
I made it through about 5 days of material.
Keeping a handwritten journal is too slow and messy for my moves-a-mile-a-minute brain, so it seemed appealing to use a computer. But rather than just keeping a log saved privately on my computer I have elected to keep a public blog in case there is someone out there that this could help. I have a few people in mind that I might tell them about this place myself, but I have zero interest in trying to be known as a blogger so I am not planning to shout from the internet rooftops that this blog exists. This means that it logically follows that chances are if you are reading this, then you know me well enough that I have accepted your request to follow me on Instagram or Facebook. Or at the very least, you know someone who knows me and they shared this link with you.
I have chosen to use the chronological reading plan put out by the people of The Bible Project that I found on my YouVersion app.
Each day is broken down into a video devotional and a set of scripture. My general plan is to embed that day's video (they are free to share) and write my thoughts about it. Then I will list what scripture I read with a summary as I understand it and any questions or thoughts I have about it.
If you read through this whole introduction post, then I think I have made it pretty clear I am not a bible scholar, and this isn't meant to be instructional, its meant to be cathartic. But I know that given the nature of the Bible it means I am going to be writing about my feelings on hot button issues. I am not looking to host antagonistic debates, so I have comment moderation turned on. Because again: I'm an adult and I do what I want.
With that said, whether you agree or disagree with what you read here, if you want to chat about it I'd love that; because lets keep it real, I do love the idea of knowing that people are reading what I am writing. I also really love talking. Most of all, though, I hate the idea of someone struggling alone with their thoughts even more. This isn't a thinly veiled attempt to subversively convert anyone. Its just an opportunity to "think out loud" with someone who knows what its like to struggle.
