Bay Book and Psalms.

After our class discussion on Wednesday I began to really think about the Psalms and the different translations. Well, really the translations between the Book of Psalms that we have and the Bay book. I've never really been that big of a religious person, I believe in God, but don't have a religion, and haven't read the Bible before. So, after our discussion I was thinking about the fact that these 'books' aren't just a story about religious figures or the figures we've known to be connected to religion, they're music for people's lives.

While we were talking about the Puritans and the Psalms, I kind of feel like they allowed the books translations to be their, 'instructions' as to what they were supposed to do here. In Psalm 2:8, of the Bay Book, it says "Aske thou of me, and I will give and of the earth thou shalt possesse the utmost coast abroad," this may have seemed to the Puritans that God was on their side when they came here.

I believe that people wanted these "stories" to have a special meaning so they found a way to incorporate that into something that has a meaning for everyone, which would be music. So many people singing the same thing, has to send a message.

Differences throughout the Book of Psalms

In just the first two lines of Psalms 2, in the Bay book, I’ve noticed that they arrangement of the words have been switched around a little bit. It doesn’t change the meaning of the Psalm, but for someone who has read a different translation of the book of Psalms, they may have to look at it for a little bit longer. They tend to use different words as well. Instead of mountain, the Bay Book uses the word hill.

I decided to translate Psalms 6 through the two different books. I felt that it was easiest to understand the last part of the Psalms. “The lord hears my plea, the Lord will take my prayer. Let all my enemies be shamed and hard stricken, let them turn back, be shamed in an instant.”  The Bay Book translates this in a very similar way, but instead of saying let the enemies be shamed in the beginning the Bay Book doesn’t imply this until the end of the translation.

I feel like the meaning behind the two translations is the same, as it should be. However, they use different words and the way that the Bay Book translation is organized is a little bit confusing and difficult to read. I would rather read the translation that we have for class because it’s easier to read and to me, understand. I don’t feel as if they change throughout the contexts. I just feel that the words have been switched out for other words, and the order of the words have been switched, however, the meaning still means the same thing.

Effigy Mounds and Geertz

I’m on the fence about the effigy mounds being reflections of a “system of symbols”, as mentioned in the Geertz definition. However, I feel like certain aspects of the mounds, and how they have been created can have a connection. The effigy mounds are considered by some to be representations of the same belief systems that were visible on the pottery. To me, I feel like the things throughout the pottery relates to the Geertz definition because even then they had an “ideology” about an upper world and a lower world, and Earth simply being in the middle. In a religious context, it’s like a heaven and a hell.

Part of me agrees with Lynne Goldstein when she suggests that the mounds could be resource maps, however, part of me believes that the Effigy mounds were built as a system of symbols. The reason I say this is because Mallam has a very good point. There are three different groups of mounds; Earth, air, and water, and those are the things that humans as a civilization rely upon for survival. I understand that they may have had to figure that out when they first built the mounds, but how could they have known that the later generations would adapt to needing the same things. Also, as Mallam states, it seems like they realized that the Earth, air, and water aspects of their lives had to in a sense work together to maintain the appropriate means of living conditions.

Also, in a recent study it showed that whenever the predominate “class of mound” was present, the complimentary or opposing “class” was somewhere in relation to it. That to me can relate to Geertz’s definition because it can act as an order or existence, in a way. Like, without the air and water, the Earth wouldn’t have a means for survival. The Earth being depicted in the middle of figure 5.6 to me means that the Earth was reliable on the sky and water back then, as it is now.

Indian Mounds of Wisconsin

Throughout the first assigned reading in the Indian Mounds of Wisconsin, I was actually interested in how they were going to go about excavating the different mounds simply to discover the reasoning and the people (tribes) behind it.

To build onto what we discussed in class about the Native Americans living in villages around the mounds, if they weren't civilized and where just savages, something tells me that they wouldn't have just ignored the structures that were on the land prior to their villages. I honestly believe that if the Native Americans were so uncivilized as we've read about then the mounds wouldn't still be standing. Also, we can doubt the abilities of the Native Americans being able to construct the mounds, however, how often do we hear about someone questioning the ability of the Egyptians creating the pyramids. Like stated in class, we tend to tell stories to explain the things that we don't have a solid concrete answer for, but, does that give anyone the right to question what another group of individuals are capable of?

One thing that struck me as odd was the fact that the difference in the conclusions in who actually built the mounds and the different ways they came about those conclusions. Lapham saw connections between the mounds and the modern day Native Americans in the area and pottery and pipes that had been recovered. While,William Pidgeon claims to have heard the histories of the mounds and traditions of the mounds told by the builders themselves. Pidgeon also wrote about how he heard many stories from De-coo-dah and how he had informed Pidgeon about their builders and their secrets. However, Silverberg states that the instance from Pidgeon is just a myth and never had any objective existence. Why couldn't the people build off each other? Isn't that what research is about? Taking someone else's findings and studying them and finding a way to prove them wrong? Not just hearing something that you don't agree with and immediately saying its false.

Richard Dawkins Video

I feel that Dawkins is extremely biased. He's an evolutionary biologists and in his line of work he's been pre-conditioned to not believe something unless there is proof to prove it. I feel that he lets his occupation get in the way of things that he could believe.
Like what another student said in class today, because nobody was around in the time when all of this started we have nothing to go on except our beliefs and the beliefs of others.
As far as the "appropriate" way to discuss religion, I'm not so sure there is an appropriate way to do so. I would think that one of the closest ways to do so would be to simply listen to people and their beliefs and to not try to change or force someone else to change their religion just to be happy.

Why Do We Believe?

I'm not going to lie, this article confused the heck out of me. So, if this doesn't make sense that's why. :\

The author made a satement saying that scientists are searching for an explination for why belief in God exist, but not if God actually exist.. But, that makes me think where the idea of "God" came from if he doesn't exist. According to the article, a Richard Dawkins, who said that religion is nothing more than a useless evolutionary accident.
I want to say that the believers that are mentioned on the second page of the article are right. If we have to ability to think, and the mental capacity to discern a God, how would these ideas have gotten there? Did someone in the pre-historic times just think of a higher, alimighty power, to allow us to put our faith into something or someone who has the ability to change our lives, and know about our lives before we take the steps to create them.
On the third page it says, "I wondered why no society ever survived more than three generations without a religious foundation as its raison d'etre." I feel like a society as a whole has certain religious beliefs, but it's the individual people who don't believe the same things that the society does.
This article was difficult for me to read and understand. I belive mainly because it's hard for me to see a point of someone who doesn't believe in God arguing about why we believe, and if we why have a belief for God, but not not positive that a God does exist.