see attached for info

300 words works cited

asap urgent urgent

RELS1325– Religious Quest

Rev. Paul Hudec, PhD, MAPS

Week 5 Lecture on Literalism

One of this week’s topics is religion and morality and considering last week’s work on evil, our work with Ethics, the

form

al discipline of right and wrong should be insightful. There is another thread that invites us to consider how we (Christians) read the Bible and to address issues connected with literalism and fundamentalism in interpretation.
Yesterday, the prayer group was sharing readings and the genealogy of

Jesus

on His father’s side specifically, who was Joseph’s father. One would think this is not a central issue of faith so all thought that it would be an easy thing to discover by just checking the Gospels and that would be it. Each of the Gospels were selected (by different people). The Gospel of John did not include that point. The Gospel of Mark did not have anything either. The Gospel of Matthew had part of one sentence (Mt. 1:16) indicating the Jacob was the father of Joseph. Still, no discussion on this point. Things changed when the Gospel of Luke was shared and Heli is the father of Joseph (Lk. 3:23) and the entire genealogy afterwards. (One could then compare this list with those who lived prior to Jesus and contained from Genesis and other books. Are these lists the same?)

What happens when a point that is usually considered a fact is not the same in two or more places?

Is this a contradiction? What does this then imply or how does one come to a conclusion?

What are the principles that are present in terms of providing a framework for Biblical interpretation and determination of its

meaning

then and now today?

Linguistics

First, let’s define this term.

“Linguistics is the

scientific

study of

language

,

[1]

and involves an analysis of language form, language meaning, and language in

context

.

[2]

The earliest activities in the

documentation

and

description of language

have been attributed to the 6th century BC

Indian

grammarian

Pāṇini

,

[3]

[4]

who wrote a formal description of the

Sanskrit language

in his Aṣṭādhyāyī.

[5]

“

Source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics

When we speak to each other, there is a richness that goes far beyond the literal and this short part of this week’s lecture is hardly able to scratch the surface (notice this is the first example and I don’t mean that you physically begin itching or scratching the top layer of something!). When you hear someone use that phrase you don’t think of the top layer of something but know that this phrase means something totally other. Also, consider the Italian phrase: Ha il braccino corto. If you use a computer translator that might present the following English phrase: He has a short arm which is different from the arms and tentacles as depicted below and avoiding all of the medical conditions on the Internet. The meaning is “He’s stingy.”

Then there’s the phrase “Ha il braccino corto?” The literal translation is “She threw you the package?” but should be translated and understood as: “She stood you up?”

Remember, this is contemporary Italian and English in the 21st century as compared with the language that Jesus spoke was

Aramaic

. “It is generally agreed by historians that Jesus and his

disciples

primarily spoke Aramaic (

Jewish Palestinian Aramaic

), the

common language

of

Judea in the first century AD

, most likely a

Galilean dialect

distinguishable from that of

Jerusalem

.[1] The villages of

Nazareth

and

Capernaum

in

Galilee

, where Jesus spent most of his time, were Aramaic-speaking communities.[2] It is also likely that Jesus knew enough

Koine Greek

to converse with those not native to

Palestine

, and it is also possible that Jesus knew some Hebrew for religious purposes.[3]
[4]
[5]”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_of_Jesus

Think of the differences that time (20 centuries), cultures, military-political setting, stark contrast in technological differences, religious beliefs (He was Jewish in the ancient world) and uninformed that the world was not the center of the universe and was spherical and that science, real science would not be ‘invented’ for more than fifteen centuries, etc., etc. By the way, the current civil war in Syria and the utter destructive actions in the Middle East due to the Iraq War and ISIS, etc. Aramaic may disappear as a spoken language.

Does this say something about linguistics and reading the Bible?

The Quest – Myth versus Fact, Part I

COLLAPSE

Top of Form

To continue our work beyond just the short narrative in the text, let’s continue any point presented in the lecture and video file for this week and add other material and insights to further our discussions specifically focusing on the quest and those topics and that effort that is required.

First, let’s explore two perspectives on this religious quest: the individual (from our perspective in that we are the one on the question), and the other (a friend, family member, etc. who may be searching for that religious experience or religious meaning for life).  (See the attached file, The Quest.)

Secondly, let’s begin exploring this final point in the subject line, e.g. the myths that we still hold today especially the ones contained within our religions, i.e. the one that we most closely identify.

Bottom of Form

RELS1325 – Religious Quest

Rev. Paul Hudec, PhD, MAPS

Week 5 Lecture on Literalism: corn

In a recent Sunday’s first reading from Joshua (5:11) a reference was made to roasted grain and in older translations the word corn is used. For those who have some background in agriculture or remember the European arrival in America, the discovery of corn was a surprise since corn is not native to Europe nor in the Middle East. While the domestication of corn took place about 6,000 years ago, it remained in the American hemisphere. So, what does this do for our translation of corn in Joshua 5:11?

Is this a translation issue?

Is this an interpretation issue?

Is this even important?

https://www.godandscience.org/cults/corn