Interpretation and adaptations

                 An aspect of the Psalms the grabbed me is the interpretation adaptations that happen based on the changes of the world. Previously, when I thought about the Psalms they seemed very set in stone with zero leeway but after going over two different translations and mulling it over for a few days they seem far stagnant. Today when we think of very old things they seem unchangeable but the two translations of the Psalms were fairly different. This idea kind of makes me wonder what the true original sounded like; I guess without having a full understanding of Hebrew I will never get the full effect. I also am curious as to what are things I think I know that was originally very different. I believe if something is broad enough than everyone will interpret it their own individual way. Psalms were meant to be sung so everyone would be able to be unified, often when we sing things we aren’t doing an in-depth analysis, just singing along. Maybe the interpretations happen when someone sits and really digs deep and thinks about each line and then adds in their own personal beliefs maybe even un-intentionally.

A Loving God is more accepted

I found the comparison of this kind of difficult at first until I went through line by line and analyzed two like that. I think the book of Bay Psalms was a lot harsher in wording. The 1600s were a time where God was to be feared, the “almighty smiting” type one may say. The much newer translation has a much softer way to it and the flow is far more poetic with less emphasis on direct translation.

 “Serve yee the lord with reverence rejoice in him with fear”, Bay Psalm 2:11. http://books.google.com/books?id=Fn48yVYkqvAC&pg=RA1-PR2&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U3nQF7hb6PnANH_I8yvxf4rfX_BNQ&ci=264%2C1083%2C485%2C70&edge=0 here basically it is saying that one needs to look to God with the upmost respect and fear. In the newer addition the line is much softer. http://books.google.com/books?id=Fn48yVYkqvAC&pg=RA1-PR2&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U3nQF7hb6PnANH_I8yvxf4rfX_BNQ&ci=191%2C796%2C502%2C134&edge=0 in this part it is totally different from the Alter translation. In the Bay translation the word “Heathen” is used but has no place in the newer version.

                I definitely prefer the Alter translation; it’s much softer and more relatable. The idea of fearing God is no longer as relevant as a more giving one.  

We could learn something from the builders of mounds

Through the book there was a sense of closeness and community throughout the Native American community that I found very interesting. Today there is not very much emphasis in our neighborhoods, towns, and cities that we should spend time with the people around us. Before agriculture was settled in one place, small clans had to travel gathering and hunting food but every year or so all the clans would gathering to build mounds. Building the mounds was not an easy task and required many hands, so all the clans had to work together complete them. Even when there was warfare between the clans and people were killed each side treated the dead from their enemies dead as one of their own, and buried them the same. Today there is a lot less respect between and for people. I honestly don’t know anyone’s names that live on my floor in my dorm, never mind building an effigy mound with them. Countries now (for the most part) are not going to haul bodies back, that were their enemies, burry them, and put up a gravestone with flowers. Obviously our society is more advanced in medicine, government and especially technology, but that’s probably the issue. Although we feel like we are able to reconnect with people using facebook, twitter, and texting we are actually closing ourselves off to the people immediately around us.

Reasoning for Effigy Mounds

I found the chapters on effigy mounds pretty interesting. Obviously they are very symbolic but what is interesting is that there isn’t just one animal or human figure to represent the mounds but there are all different kinds that mean various things. There is “a system of symbols” but they don’t represent someone important who died (like pyramids in Egypt for pharos), but rather their surroundings. Hawks and falcon effigy mounds were made near areas with cliffs that had raptors and water spirit effigies near bodies of water. Usually when we see big statues or carvings in other cultures, it has been erected in the likeness of an important person or deity. The effigy mounds had evolved from earlier mounds because in the beginning the mounds were used for burying and marking the dead, although some effigy mounds were used for burying a lot were just simply designed mounds of dirt, so, they clearly had some other purpose. These mounds were not simply dumped onto the ground the mound makers had to calculate using the curves and grooves of the land and work with what was already there. There was clearly a strong purpose for building these more stylized mounds because there was a lot of effort put into them. The symbolism is clear and obviously very important since the mound makers went to such great lengths to make them.

Religion Through History

I read through the Paleolithic Art and Religion and was intrigued. It was interesting how even the very earliest civilizations began forming religion and worshiping. Also I thought it made sense how religion and politics/government would go together because at that point they were one in the same, probably because both systems were far less complex than present day.  I couldn’t help but compare this with the idea that religion is an inherent part of human nature, if religion was not a naturally occurring or developed evolutionary trait, than why has it been around just about as long as humans? Religion has had such a big part in just about everything because it seems to be semi essential to mankind’s ability to thrive. I also have thought about how a government would work if it was involved with religion? Would it create more unified groups or cause a lot more issues. The world has many different types of people it seems hard to believe that church and state would not have negative effects and be too restricting. After seeing so many examples of how big a part religion played in all civilizations I am pretty convinced that there is some need for religious practice. I’m not sure exactly what that need is though.

The Need for Religion

After watching the clip on YouTube by Same Harris Why We Should Ditch Religion and reading the article Why We Believe I have done some critical thinking on whether or not it is conceivable for an individual to completely brush-off of religion, and I’ve come to the conclusion that it is impossible for someone to wright off religion because something (and I’m not sure exactly what) is hardwired in our brains to make us search out something that has more control and a hire existence than ourselves.

I’ve done some reflecting and feel deep down that I want some things; good or bad, to have some sort of meaning. It is easier to grasp a strange situation or outcome by believing that some divine entity has had a hand in it. I especially find myself thinking about God when I need consoling or am frightened, and although I think I am a rational person a part of me hopes that God will intervene in some way. In Why We Believe the author mentions that he crosses his fingers or prays when there is bad turbulence on a plane, and I definitely can relate to that same feeling in those sorts of situations.

Although I am no longer very involved in Catholicism I still understand that, for whatever reason, the need for religion is burnt into our mind. I have no idea what the evolutionary purpose is or even if there is a purpose, but I do know that just about everyone has experienced the need for either religion or a divine being(s). It is also comforting to believe that there is some kind of afterlife because to me, the idea of unmitigated nothingness is the most terrifying thing I can imagine.