Copyrights
Via Artsjournal.com we find a description of a glass artist's attempts to sue other artists whom he says are copying him. This relates to my post on Ex Nihilo by Frederick Hart, and Michael Blowhard's comment, all which you can see here.
I also wanted to comment on that swirly leaf lettuce pattern in Hart's sculpture. To me, it looks like the kind of wave produced by a helicopter when it flies low over water -- which in turn brings to mind -- and puts an odd, slightly irreverent spin (sorry) on -- the strange description in Genesis 1:2 of the Holy Ghost, who, as some translations say, "hovered" over the face of the waters.
[And at this point, the post veers off into the very deep and troubled waters of religious belief about creation. Those of you who are allergic should bail now, or at least have your medication handy.]
Those who take Genesis seriously on at least some level may share with me an awe at the spooky imagery of Genesis' opening passage. It's oddness, and somewhat confusing descriptions, only increase its authority for me; I admit my approach may be not shared by many, but I feel our origins must be beyond our understanding, else they would lack the complexity necessary to produce us.
Those interested in a very learned description of the perils of Old Testament translation are urged to read the New Criterion's review of Robert Alter's new translation of the Hebrew Bible. (Registration required.) Especially fascinating is the description of the phrase tohu wa-bohu, traditionally rendered "without form and void" but which may be a neologism (if that can describe a phrase that is thousands of years old) never used anywhere else, which Eric Ormsby, the reviewer, suggests could be rendered "helter-skelter." Try again, Eric.
Finally, I offer this odd link which comes from a strongly literalist approach to the Bible, yet manages to arrive at some novel conclusions (and is perfectly consistent with an earth that is billions of years old). I link neither to mock, nor to endorse, but merely to expand your understanding of what is possible in the big, wide world of devout religious belief. In fact, the theory that Genesis 1:3ff was meant to describe a re-creation is one I have heard before.
Umie the Umlaut says, "ask your doctor about the Fredösphere!"
3 Comments:
I would hazard to say that the world right now is "without form or void". Hence Genesis as being prophetic?
Kinda OT for this post, but this is what I have been working on for the last few years.
I've been growing into the conclusion that Mark is the only accurate Gospel in the NT, and that most of the problems with Christian theology can be fixed if you just throw out everything in Matthew, Luke, and John that happens before the ministry of John the Baptist (I think the originals all started out with the ministry of John, and they make a LOT more sense if you read them that way, with the exception of opening salutations, such as Luke has).
The whole "virgin birth" thing - which makes God a liar, since He said the Messiah would be in the Davidic line of kings - has always given me heartburn. For the prophesy to be true, Joseph would have had to sire Jesus in the natural way since Mary was not of the house of David, which is my conclusion. Joseph was Jesus' dad, and that's that.
But why? Why would anyone want God to sire the Christ directly instead of Joseph? It seems that a lot of the early converts to Christianity were former Jews (Especially the literate ones, and Mark is the only Gospel not written in erudite High Greek, which is where I'm sure the errors crept in: That final codifying translation or re-write), and many of them had a problem with the Davidic line. Namely Ruth, David's grandmother, who was an Idumaen: A race supposedly cursed by God forever. See how the Holy Spirit fathering Christ solves that? That Idumaen blood is convieniently removed from the corpus of the Savior.
My view of the Bible is the opposite of the X-Files credo: Instead of "The Truth is Out There", it's "The Truth is In There." The evangelical stance that every word in the Bible is inerrant has always seemed naiieve and untenable to me. Many men with many different agendas wrote the Biblical texts, so OF COURSE there are going to be errors and flat out lies in it. I mean, those scribes were that time's moral equivalent of lawyers, for crying out loud.
Obviously, I'm not an Evangelical Christian. Or a lawyer. ;^)
It's turtles all the way down. :-)
Post a Comment
<< Home