I was reading Ezekiel 42 this morning. This is part of an extended vision given to Ezekiel in which a temple (among other things, later, I believe) is described in pretty significant detail. Very little of which I could follow. So, I had the idea of trying to CAD this temple. Indeed, I can think of several other descriptions in the people that would make good CADing exercises (most of them temples).

I spent about 15 minutes trying and despite finding some diagrams, I’m pretty sure I’m more confused than when I started. It’s just not particularly clear to me what Ezekiel is saying much of the time. On the other hand, I learned more about this temple in the 15 minutes of trying to CAD than in the several times I’ve read the passage. That comes as no surprise, and in fact was a major part of the reason for trying.

And once again I find myself wondering why we Christians so often limit ourselves in studying the Bible (expand to why we humans so often limit ourselves in studying anything). Some people, like me, rather enjoy reading and can get a lot from just reading. Even for those like me, this is really not enough. That’s part of the reason I started my FromGenesis blog, to encourage me to write about scriptural passages, as writing is another way I learn.

We Christians tend to confine recommended methods of understanding scripture to reading and listening, sometimes with a illustrative video, drama, or discussion group thrown in. Particularly disappointing in this is the lack of active methods of comprehension, of “doing something”. I know, for some people reading can be an active method, but I doubt it’s the majority, particularly when large parts of the book have references rather more understandable to a nomadic herding culture.

So, I’ve thought of a couple of ways that work for me, writing about passages and drafting buildings described in the Bible. I don’t know what sort of effort I’ll make on the CADing, but I imagine that any effort will gain me some. Again, some thoughts.

The last two years, I’ve read a version of the Bible through each year, Young’s Literal in 2006, the Contemporary English in 2007 (which was quite a contrast in readability). I’ve been doing this to get a better feel for and understanding of the Bible as a whole, in hopes that when studying various passages, I’m less likely to misinterpret–at least in a way which is inconsistent with the Bible as a whole; it also helps me in figuring out, when someone randomly quotes a “scripture”, if it’s likely really in the Bible, and where I might start looking for it. Although, I usually just hit BibleGateway’s search page.

Anyway, this year, I wanted to read a version including some of the apocraphyl books I’ve never read, having grown up Protestant. After some (admittedly limited) research, I settled on the New American Bible, reading the version online at USCCB.org. I’m most of the way through Genesis (reading 5-10 chapters a day).

Anyway, now that I’m past the introductory information, I can make my point. The NAB–at least the version I am reading, and through Genesis 40–includes footnotes with critical reading comments. Most interesting to me is the discussion of the contribution of Yahwist and Elohist sources and considerations on the effects of their combination in the current text; something I hope to study more in the future.

However, there’s another aspect of these footnotes which has struck me, that a number of footnotes state that a passage or portion thereof is illustrative and with minimal or no historical value (no, I’m not going to quote any; that it does so is not my point, but rather my reaction thereunto). My tendency when reading Genesis (including in my FromGenesis study) is to give the recordings benefit of the doubt in considering their historical accuracy, while placing minimal value on the particularly accuracy of each telling. That is, the effects of passages in Genesis on me–what I learn from them, how I apply them–are largely the same regardless of the historicity of, say, Cain.

Still, reading footnotes that confidently question historical precision in these accounts is very different to me than books I’ve read and sermons I’ve heard that have considered these accounts a literal historic retelling. I suppose I’d like to research how the various branches of Christianity came to place such different value on figurative verses literal readings of, especially, the Torah. These thoughts rolling through my head have also served to emphasize to me, once again, the value in reading a variety of translations, and indeed, of learning the original languages, which I hope someday to do.

No point, just some thoughts.