A Critical Analysis of Ten Different Bible Passages

The first passage I will address is the creation story in the book of Genesis. The passage goes into detail of God creating the Earth and mankind. There are actually two stories that are slightly different in some aspects, and they raise some questions. First of all, I am going to be using a combination of literal and historical critical point of view. I will not be on the extreme side of one of these views, as I will be in the middle of these interpretations. In chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis, there are stories that describe the creation of Earth. In these two passages, God creates similar things. However, there are clearly differences between these two stories. In Genesis 1, the creative material is more chaotic and void. But in Genesis 2, God uses dust and his breath to create, showing the difference of God's prescence. Another difference I would like to address is the action God takes in each passage. God is more active in Genesis 2 with his physical action, but in Genesis 1, the voice of God is heard. However, I think two of the more important debates are the time of the creation of humans and the human interrelationship. In chapter one, God created humans on the last day, but in chapter 2, humans were created on the first day. The difference between these two stories plays a major role due to the importance of creation. Are we talking about two different accounts here? I think that perhaps time was not an issue in one of the passages. Therefore, one passage puts importance on the timeline, while the other pays more attention to the detail of what was created and not when it was created. Although these stories conflict each other, I believe we are pertaining to the same story. Each chapter is focusing on different aspects of creation. I really enjoyed reading this passage as it caught my attention and made me think for a while. It is one of the more popular stories of the Bible as it deals with creation and is the first passage of the book. This passage was one of my favorite stories I read in the Bible. It makes the reader really think about what was going on during creation. I greatly enjoyed reading this story as it was one of my favorite this year.

The next story I would like to address is the story of Moses crossing the Red Sea. This story was really a great story, and I thought it made me think much more. The Egyptians were advancing on the Israelites, and if they caught them, they would either have to serve them or be killed. The Israelites then cried out to the Lord. Moses took his staff, stretched his hand over the sea, and divided it. The Israelites were sparred, as the Lord was fighting against Egypt. The Lord then told Moses to spread his hand over the sea to make the water come back upon the Egyptians. The Egyptians were killed, and the Israelites survived. I am taking a historical critical aproach to interpret this passage. I do not believe that Moses divided the sea through God's power. I believe there is something else going on here. I believe the Egyptians were being punished for actions they committed in the past. There was a common belief back in those times. If something bad happenned to someone, that person did something evil to deserve this punishment. I think this is what is going on in this passage. Moses did not really split the sea into two. I think this passage was used to magnify the situation, in which the Egyptians committed unjust acts. Also the Israelites were from the holy land, therefore, they would be sparred. God was on there side and would help them fight a battle against the Egyptians. If I was taking a literalists point of view, the sea would have to have been seperated. I do not think that this phenomena could have taken place. Therefore, I am strongly supporting the historical cricical view of interpretation. I liked reading this passage as it made me think on a broading scale of the power of God. I do not think this event actually took place. However, I do believe this situation was magnified to get the point to the reader.

The next passage I am going to discuss is Israel's demand for a king. Israel wants a king to become similar to other nations. As they choose monarchy, they are moving away from Yahweh. They are turning away from Yahweh, symbolizing the bad things that are about to come. After Israel receives a king, they are enslaved, lose their land, are drafted into the military, and must pay taxes. All of this is done in rejection of Yahweh. The Israelites are moving away from God and towards a king. I am taking a literal approach for this interpretation as I can see this happening. The Israelites are rejecting Yahweh and are supporting a king as their ruler. The main idea of this passage is that the Israelites are turning their backs on Yahweh. They did not listen to Yahweh, and they will get what they deserve. I can definately see something like this happenning because of the rejection of God. I liked this passage because it was more realistic than the other stories that we read this year. If someone does something bad or turns away from God, bad things are going to happen to that person. This passage entertaining me because it was one of the stories that could actually occur, and it had a greater impact on me. It backed up my thought that God is powerful, and if you turn on God, bad things are going to happen to you. This passage magnifies the idea that if you do not follow God, good things will not come your way. I appreciated reading this story, and I interpreted it from a literalists point of view.

The next passage I would like to address is the story of Elijah and his triumph over the priests of Baal. This was really a great story possibly one of my favorites. Elijah challenges the priests of Baal through a sacrafice ceremony of a bull. They both get a bull and cut it into pieces then call upon their god to answer with fire. The priests of Baal do this and their god does not answer. Elijah does the same but mocks them by adding water to the sacrafice. He calls upon the Lord, and the sacrafice is engulfed in flames. I am going to take a hitorical view for interpreting this passage. I beleive this passage was magnified to pass the message on to the reader. However I really enjoyed reading this passage because of Elijah's actions. He is mocking the priests the whole story, and I thought there was a bit of comedy there. Although God did not physically light the sacrafice on fire, there is something else going on here. The story seems to be sending the message to the reader that God is powerful, and you should not worship other gods. Elijah consitantly mocks the priests when they call out to their god. Heis mocking them because their god is not answering their call. This passage is in the bible to show that God is the almighty one. It is representing the power God possesses. Elijah is a follower of God; therefore, God is there when Elijah calls for him. This passage is a true test of faith because it shows what happens when you worship other gods. Overall, this passage was one of my favorite, and I am reading it form a historical point of view.

The final passage I would like to talk about is when Jesus fed the five thousand people in the Gospel of Mark. Jesus nad the apostles only had five loaves of bread and one fish for five thousand people. Jesus took the fish and bread and made enough food to serve five thousand hungry people. I do not think this event actually took place. Therefore, I am taking a hitorical critical view of interpretation. I believe there is something else going on in this story. I beleive this passage was written along with other parables to pass on a very important message. They were written to depict Jesus as someone above the average follower of God. It seems nearly impossible to multiply fish and bread with a snap of the fingers. The Gospels were written to potray Jesus as an individual whose life revolved around Jesus. I do not think these miracles can actually happen, and I beleive these miracles were written to give Jesus a positive reputation. They were written to give Jesus a little extra than the normal follower of God. I think this is what we are dealing with here. I cannot imagine food being produced to feed five thousand. I am supporting a historical critical point of view and agree this passage was written to potray Jesus above the average followers of God.

The first theophanic experience I would like to discuss is found in the third chapter of the book of Genesis. It is evident from the text that the Lord was walking in the garden, and the man and his wife hid themselves form the prescence of the Lord. This verse gives us a theophany to deal with, and it gives us questions that need to be answered. The Lord comes into the garden because of the fruit that was eaten from the tree. The man says he hid because he was naked. However, he was afraid of the Lord seeing him after his unfaithful act. Because of the first sin, the woman and the man are punished. The woman will have increased pains when trying to give birth, and she shall serve her husband. The man will recieve thorns and thistles for his actions. I do not beleive God was actually walking in the garden when this event occured. I think God could have been represented by some figure or creature. I think theophanies are used to pass a message across to the reader. Therefore, something unique and special must occur such as God coming down to the face of the Earth and interacting with humans. This event really catches people's attention and helps send a message. I think in ancient times this story would be more beleivible becaus eof the time period. Back in those times, people believed there were ghosts, spirits, and interactions between God. In today's world people want the hard facts. Evidence is always needed in today's society. Therefore, this story would be harder to believe in our times. Our ancestors really viewed reality in a different way, and I think that is why it is harder to get an understanding of this theophany in today's world.

The next theophany I would like to talk about is the prescence of an angel when Abraham is about to sacrafice his son, Isaac. An angels appears when Abraham takes a knife to kill Isaac. God speaks to Abraham through the angel. He says, do not kill your son; rather, kill the ram whose horns are caught in a thicket. The angel called to Abraham a second time, saying since he did not kill his son, his offspring will be as numerous as the stars of heaven, and they will be blessed. I will not go to one extreme when interpreting this passage. I believe Abraham would sacrafice his son if God called for the occassion. However, I do not beleive an angel appeared before Abraham to stop him from continuing. I think Abraham had some kind of vision or dream as I cannot imagine an angel appearing before him. Once again I believe this passage was written to pass a message to the reader. Abraham is following the word of God even if it is to kill his son. Once again we are brought to that idea. If someone follows God, good things are going to happen to that person. Abraham's children will be blessed and be numerous. I think this story would be easier to comprehend if we were in anciet times. Ghosts, spirits, and angels were always present, and it was not unique to experience one of these aparitions. It is harder for us to understand this story because in today's world we need facts. If somebody said they saw an angel in today's society, people would think that there is something wrong with that person. However, in anciet times it would be understandable to see an aparition. This passage was very entertaining, but may be hard to understand in today's society.

Another theophanic experience in the bible is the burning bush at Horeb. The Lord appeared to Moses in fire out of a bush. However, the bush was not consumed. God then called for Moses out of the bush. This theophany is hard to understand due to its nature, and I will be taking a historical critical view of interpretation. God declares he will give the Israelites a land flowing with milk and honey. I do not think the bush is actually on fire and not being consumed. I think this theophany was used to represent something else. I beleive the burning bush represents the persecution of the Israelites. The Egyptians are persecuting the Israelites, and the bush represents this idea in one way. The Israelites will not be killed even though they are being persecuted. This idea is similar to the bush as it is being burned, but it is not being consumed. The bush is not being destroyed, which is similar to the way God is going to save the Israelites. I do not think the bush was actually on fire without being consumed. The burning is a representation of God sparring the Israelites from death and persecution. I think in anciet times this theophany could have been beleived more easily due to the lack of knowledge back then. However, today facts are needed to proove something. There are no hard facts here, and that is why it would be hard to beleive this theophany in today's world. Most people agree that a bush cannot be on fire without being consumed. The bush is a symbol and represents the lack of consumption of the Israelites. The Israelites are the holy, choosen ones, and they are being sparred because of this. The burning bush is not actually being consumed, and the theophany helps the reader understand the situation that is at hand.

The fourth theophanic experience I would like to explore is the appearance of an angel during the passage of the birth of Ishmael. Abram's wife, Sarai, could not bear children with her husband. She told her husband to obtain children through their slave girl, Hagar. Hagar conceived but looked with contempt on her mistress. Sarai delt harshly with her, and Hagar ran away. The angel appeared and told Hagar to return to her mistress and submit to her. The angel said that she will multiply her offspring that they cannot be counted for multitude. Hagar returned and bore Abram a son named Ishmael. This theophany was a very interesting one as it involves an angel coming down to Earth to speak to a human. I am taking a historical critical point of view for interpreting this passage. I think Hagar had a dream or some kind of vision. I do not think an angel came down to Earth and spoke to her. This passage can be interpreted differently depending upon the time period. If we look at the anciet times, many people believed in ghosts and spirits. However, if someone said to you today that he saw an angel, you would look at that person as if he was crazy. I beileive the time period plays a major role in the understanding and interpreting of this passage.

The final theophany I would like to discuss is God's prescence at Mount Sinai. Moses and the Israelites arrive at Mount Sinai, where the Lord descends before them, engulfing the mountain in a cloud of thunder and lightening. The Lord summoned Moses to the top of the mountain. God told Moses not to let the people break through to look at the Lord, or they would perish. God then gives Moses the ten commandments. I am interpreting this passage from a historical critical point of view. I do beleive there is some kind of storm going on here, and Moses feels as if he is being called by God. I think there is some type of interaction between Moses and God. God's prescence is evident when he says that he will appear in a dense cloud. Yet do learn that there is a major storm over the mountain, and God is here. It would much easier to believe this passage during the ancient times. Many people believed encounters with God actually took place. However, in today's world many people would not beleive God is talking to a human being. Many people would say that this is just a storm. But, back then people had a different view of reality, creating this passage a realistic one.