Written For Our Day

[volgadon]

I apologise for the lengthy quote below, but it is a gem and worth the effort. But first, a word on why it is relevant to an LDS reader. I've been thinking for the past few days of the idea that as the Book of Mormon was written for our day. The idea certainly isn't new, I've encountered it in church and on my mission rather frequently. The BoM was written with future generations in mind, as a "voice from the dust" it can be seen as an extended ethical will teaching which paths to avoid and which to follow. What I don't think this means is that it was written from a North American LDS perspective of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, that Mormon viewed life from the same lens as members of a typical Provo ward today (just to pick on someone), that his society mirrored ours in its particulars. I get the importance of applying the scriptures to our lives, "likening them to ourselves." Scriptures are meant to be lived. This is where things get tricky. I did not grow up in the USA, the church was present only in miniscule numbers, I am part of a different culture, with different expressions, experiences, concerns, fears, superstitions, and joys.

My wife is from yet a different country, and though similar and familiar in many ways, our perceptions do differ even from each other's. Ehab Abunuwara http://maxwellinstit...11&num=1&id=280 and Louis Midgley http://maxwellinstit...id=13&chapid=95 have both written insightful essays on how culture affects one's reading of the Book of Mormon.

What unites members world-wide is the faith, not so much the culture.

What surprised me was the view that the BoM was wirtten specifically for our day, not for Joseph Smith's day, nor even for the generation, or, two, or four, following ours. Why not for Joseph's day, when the book was revealed, why particularly our day above all others? I was told that the BoM was not particularly relevant for Joseph's day. Apparently, it is meant to counter the challenges of "Modernity."

Personally, I'm a bit of a Village Green Preservation Society-ist, the past definitely enchants me, but this all out rejection of "Modernity" is a little silly. It is not as if the church teaches that we are on a completely downward spiral of worsening evil. If evil increases in its intensity, so does good, which will eventually triumph. There are also Joseph Fielding Smith's remarks on the latter-day fulfilment of Joel's prophecy of the spirit being poured out on the world, so I think that we are pessoptimists, to borrow a term coined by the Palestinian writer Emile Habibi.

[media=]

So, with this in mind, I want to share a quote by Georges Florovsky, one of the foremost Eastern Orthodox theologians and scholars of the previous century. The quote shows the folly of imbuing the scriptures with too much presentism. It comes from pages 23-26 of Volume Three in the Collected Works of Georges Florovsky. What Florovsky was saying is that a deeper and fuller understanding of scripture is dependant upon viewing it in historical context. God was communicating man in language man could relate to and understand. To ignore the historical context in favour of the universal is to distort the message and miss the point. As I see it, this relates just as much to moulding the past in our own image. This fits in very well with the revelation contained in Section 1 of the Doctrine and Covenants.

This is not the place to treat in detail the basic questions of Biblical exegesis. Nevertheless one thing must be unconditionally stated. Scripture can be viewed from a double perspective: outside of history or—as history. In the first case the Bible is interpreted as a book of eternal and sacred images and symbols. And one must then unravel and interpret it precisely as a symbol, according to the rules of the symbolical or allegorical method. In the ancient Church the adherents of the allegorical method interpreted the Bible in this manner. The mystics of the Middle Ages and of the era of the Reformation understood the Bible also in this manner. Many contemporary theologians, especially Roman Catholic theologians, also lean toward such an understanding. The Bible appears then as a kind of Law Book, as a codex of divine commandments and ordinances, as a collection of texts or "theological loci" as a compilation of pictures and illustrations. The Bible then becomes a self-sufficient and self-contained book—a book, so to speak, written for no one, a book with seven seals.,.. One need not reject such an approach: there is a certain truth in such an interpretation. But the totality of the Spirit of the Bible contradicts such an interpretation; it contradicts the direct meaning of Scripture. And the basic error of such an understanding consists in the abstraction from man. Certainly the Word of God is eternal truth and God speaks in Revelation for all times. But if one admits the possibility of various meanings of Scripture and one recognizes in Scripture a kind of inner meaning which is abstracted and independent from time and history, one is in danger of destroying the realism of Revelation. It is as though God had so spoken that those to whom he first and directly spoke had not understood him—or, at least, had not understood as God had intended. Such an understanding reduces history to mythology. And finally Revelation is not only a system of divine words but also a system of divine acts; and precisely for this reason—it is, above all, history, sacred history or the history of salvation [Heilsgeschickte], the history of the covenant of God with man. Only in such an historical perspective does the fulness of Scripture disclose itself to us. The texture of Scripture is an historical texture. The words of God are always, and above all, time-related—they have always, and above all, a direct meaning. God sees before him, as it were, the one to whom he speaks, and he speaks because of this in such a way that he can be heard and understood. For he always speaks for the sake of man, for man. There is a symbolism in Scripture—but it is rather a prophetic than an allegorical symbolism. There are images and allegories in Scripture, but in its totality Scripture is not image and allegory but history.

Following this is a fascination discussion of the difference between typology and symbolism and how language helps us percieve God.

One must distinguish between symbolism and typology. In symbolism one abstracts from history. Typology, however, is always historical; it is a kind of prophecy—when the events themselves prophesy. One can also say that prophecy is also a symbol—a sign which points to the future—but it is always an historical symbol which directs attention to future events. Scripture has an historical teleology: everything strives toward an historical boundary-point, upward toward the historical telos. For this reason there is such a tension of time in Holy Scripture. The Old Testament is the time of messianic expectation—this is the basic theme of the Old Testament. And the New Testament is, above all, history—the evangelical history of the Divine Word and the beginning of the history of the Church, which is directed anew to the expectation of Apocalyptic fulfillment. "Fulfillment" is in general the basic category of Revelation. Revelation is the Word of God and the Word about God. But, at the same time, in addition to this, Revelation is always a Word addressed to man, a summons and an appeal to man. And in Revelation the destiny of man is also revealed. In any case the Word of God is given to us in our human language. We know it only as it resounds through our receptiveness, in our consciousness, in our spirit. And the substance and objectivity of Revelation is apprehended not by man's abstracting himself from himself, nor by depersonalizing himself, nor by shrinking to a mathematical point, thereby transforming himself into a "transcendental subject." It is precisely the opposite: a "transcendental subject" can neither perceive nor understand the voice of God. It is not to a "transcendental subject," not to any "consciousness-in-general" that God speaks. The "God of the Living," the God of Revelation speaks to living persons, to empirical subjects. The face of God reveals itself only to living personalities. And the better, the fuller and the clearer that man sees the face of God, so much the more distinct and living is his own face, so much the fuller and clearer has the "image of God" exhibited and realized itself in him. The highest objectivity in the hearing and understanding of Revelation is achieved through the greatest exertion of the creative personality, through spiritual growth, through the transfiguration of the personality, which overcomes in itself "the wisdom of flesh," ascending to "the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ"...

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Amen, man.

[Maidservant]

I shall have to think on all of that. Hmmmm . . . .

I have often experienced the Book of Mormon as a map of what is now and what is coming, and that we, as a world, are somewhere in Helaman.

[SamIam]

I apologise for the lengthy quote below, but it is a gem and worth the effort. But first, a word on why it is relevant to an LDS reader. I've been thinking for the past few days of the idea that as the Book of Mormon was written for our day. The idea certainly isn't new, I've encountered it in church and on my mission rather frequently. The BoM was written with future generations in mind, as a "voice from the dust" it can be seen as an extended ethical will teaching which paths to avoid and which to follow. What I don't think this means is that it was written from a North American LDS perspective of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, that Mormon viewed life from the same lens as members of a typical Provo ward today (just to pick on someone), that his society mirrored ours in its particulars. I get the importance of applying the scriptures to our lives, "likening them to ourselves." Scriptures are meant to be lived. This is where things get tricky. I did not grow up in the USA, the church was present only in miniscule numbers, I am part of a different culture, with different expressions, experiences, concerns, fears, superstitions, and joys.

My wife is from yet a different country, and though similar and familiar in many ways, our perceptions do differ even from each other's. Ehab Abunuwara http://maxwellinstit...11&num=1&id=280 and Louis Midgley http://maxwellinstit...id=13&chapid=95 have both written insightful essays on how culture affects one's reading of the Book of Mormon.

What unites members world-wide is the faith, not so much the culture.

What surprised me was the view that the BoM was wirtten specifically for our day, not for Joseph Smith's day, nor even for the generation, or, two, or four, following ours. Why not for Joseph's day, when the book was revealed, why particularly our day above all others? I was told that the BoM was not particularly relevant for Joseph's day. Apparently, it is meant to counter the challenges of "Modernity."

Personally, I'm a bit of a Village Green Preservation Society-ist, the past definitely enchants me, but this all out rejection of "Modernity" is a little silly. It is not as if the church teaches that we are on a completely downward spiral of worsening evil. If evil increases in its intensity, so does good, which will eventually triumph. There are also Joseph Fielding Smith's remarks on the latter-day fulfilment of Joel's prophecy of the spirit being poured out on the world, so I think that we are pessoptimists, to borrow a term coined by the Palestinian writer Emile Habibi.

So, with this in mind, I want to share a quote by Georges Florovsky, one of the foremost Eastern Orthodox theologians and scholars of the previous century. The quote shows the folly of imbuing the scriptures with too much presentism. It comes from pages 23-26 of Volume Three in the Collected Works of Georges Florovsky. What Florovsky was saying is that a deeper and fuller understanding of scripture is dependant upon viewing it in historical context. God was communicating man in language man could relate to and understand. To ignore the historical context in favour of the universal is to distort the message and miss the point. As I see it, this relates just as much to moulding the past in our own image. This fits in very well with the revelation contained in Section 1 of the Doctrine and Covenants.

Following this is a fascination discussion of the difference between typology and symbolism and how language helps us percieve God.

I like his manner of reasoning in that he seems to cover both the here and now of Bible interpretation as a means of it being timeless relative to the ability of the reader to find valuable guidance regardless of the era in which the reader lives. However, he also seems to build upon the great value of knowing the times and manner of the people to whom the text is directed.

Attempting to find and understand both sides of that coin is immensely valuable and the one perspective of now only illustrates the nature of how an eternal round flows between what is past and what is yet to come. Still since time is something measured only unto man I believe I tend to be more tolerant of a presentism approach to scripture interpretation than your author and as such consider true scripture understanding timeless in application if the reasonable balancing interpretations and symbolic implications are applied.

As well, I believe we are in agreement, if I have understood your perspective correctly, that once one comprehends the culture and implications to the people to whom the scriptures were written and embraces scriptures personal meaning to the individual in the present we are then well equipped to strip the "them" and the "me" of our understanding away to finally have left the purest principle of "His" meaning that crosses all boundaries, all cultures and is best understood as it applies to all men everywhere.

Edited July 28, 2012 by SamIam

[volgadon]

I like his manner of reasoning in that he seems to cover both the here and now of Bible interpretation as a means of it being timeless relative to the ability of the reader to find valuable guidance regardless of the era in which the reader lives. However, he also seems to build upon the great value of knowing the times and manner of the people to whom the text is directed.

Attempting to find and understand both sides of that coin is immensely valuable and the one perspective of now only illustrates the nature of how an eternal round flows between what is past and what is yet to come. Still since time is something measured only unto man I believe I tend to be more tolerant of a presentism approach to scripture interpretation and as such consider it timeless in application if the reasonable balancing interpretations and symbolic implications are applied.

I mostly agree with your comments, but why I champion the historical over the presentist method is that the scriptures have more to teach me when I listen to what they are saying, rather than glancing into a reflecting mirror. Historical contexts helps cut to the essence of the passage, out of which I can draw lessons for my life. Not that misinterpration doesn't lead to spiritual insights, because it can too, but in an ideal world, give me the past and let the future follow.

[volgadon]

As well, I believe we are in agreement, if I have understood your perspective correctly, that once one comprehends the culture and implications to the people to whom the scriptures were written and embraces scriptures personal meaning to the individual in the present we are then well equipped to strip the "them" and the "me" of our understanding away to finally have left the purest principle of "His" meaning that crosses all boundaries, all cultures and is best understood as it applies to all men everywhere.

Aye, and a lot more eloquently put then I could have.

[SamIam]

I mostly agree with your comments, but why I champion the historical over the presentist method is that the scriptures have more to teach me when I listen to what they are saying, rather than glancing into a reflecting mirror. Historical contexts helps cut to the essence of the passage, out of which I can draw lessons for my life. Not that misinterpration doesn't lead to spiritual insights, because it can too, but in an ideal world, give me the past and let the future follow.

EDIT: I did not notice your post above and so it looks like I repeated a repeat by copying a copy of a point already made....alas the world sometimes spins too fast for me to keep up.

I believe that we see this very similar. The point I believe that you are making above, I was trying to capture in this statement:

Brock stated:

As well, I believe we are in agreement, if I have understood your perspective correctly, that once one comprehends the culture and implications to the people to whom the scriptures were written and embraces scriptures personal meaning to the individual in the present

we are then well equipped to strip the "them" and the "me" of our understanding away to finally have left the purest principle

of "His" meaning

that crosses all boundaries, all cultures and is best understood as it applies to all men everywhere.

While I am a huge supporter of applying the scriptures directly to our lives and selves, there has to be a cross check of where we step away from the "me" of interpretation to the "He" of interpretation. In other words over the years I have come to conclude that no matter how well I may think I comprehend a scriptures application to my life, until I understand it as much as possible as God understands or expected it to be precisely understood, until then I am lacking in adequate understanding. I believe this may come close to your observation of not looking in the mirror to find only your interpretation relative to your perspective of application.

I am presenting it as a stepping stone process, first we tend to start with our own individual understanding. Most may stop here but the wiser will proceed to seeking the historical and cultural implications to fill out the interpretation. Finally, though I feel it best to attempt to take me out (ie remove the mirror) then to take the them out ( ie look beyond the historical and cultural implications) and simply grasp as much as I can from pondering and spiritual insight to understand what It may mean to God. For me this is somewhat, albeit briefly touched upon, like a PRDS approach through the first three levels of understanding that are permitted for man. The fourth and final I feel builds upon the d'resh which is perhaps as far as man can go without standing in the presence of the Savior and having the visions of the eternities revealed, which, for my personal interpretation, is the receipt of the Sod.

Edited July 28, 2012 by SamIam

[Evangeline]

I mostly agree with your comments, but why I champion the historical over the presentist method is that the scriptures have more to teach me when I listen to what they are saying, rather than glancing into a reflecting mirror. Historical contexts helps cut to the essence of the passage, out of which I can draw lessons for my life. Not that misinterpration doesn't lead to spiritual insights, because it can too, but in an ideal world, give me the past and let the future follow.

I agree that consideration of historical context is certainly valuable, but we also need to remember that "historical context" is subjective and at risk of misinterpretation as well. volgadon, I believe you said elsewhere recently that history is not " facts," but rather "the interpretation of facts."

[Deborah]

I look at the BOM being written for our day in the sense that all history is written for the benefit of future generations: so that we can learn not to repeat the mistakes of the past and embrace those things that brought success and happiness. In that sense "Our Day" can be past, present and future. The historical context is valuable in realizing the challenges the past faced but also I think in teaching us how human nature doesn't change.

I find it so interesting in the BOM that Mormon would pause in some of his work to intersperse comments from his current perspective. Certainly I've done this in finding correlation in current events with what I'm reading in the BOM. Perhaps the beauty of scripture is that as we read it we do find the parallels in our own lives and times and therefore can relate in a real level of comprehension.

You referenced D&C 1 and I find vs 17 and 18 significant: "Wherefore, I the Lord, knowing the calamity which should come upon the inhabitants of the earth, called upon my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and spake unto him from heaven, and gave him commandments; And also gave commandments to others, that they should proclaim these things unto the world; and all this that it might be fulfilled, which was written by the prophets—" So yes the BOM is a warning not just to Joseph's day or our day or a future generation but to all people who find themselves being prideful and turning away from the commandments of God.

[ERayR]

I shall have to think on all of that. Hmmmm . . . .

I have often experienced the Book of Mormon as a map of what is now and what is coming, and that we, as a world, are somewhere in Helaman.

My observations lead me to beleive we are somewhere in Mormon.

[blackstrap]

Aside from the Brass Plates,I wonder what the Nephites had as 'scripture'. I assume they had the conference talks given by King Benjamin

et al . Did they have access to Mormon's abridgement? I doubt it. If there was a room full of plates as per Joseph's vision, were there copies made on bark or whatever for the general public? Mormon's plates were compiled ,not for his time and place,but for another era.

[3DOP]

Outside of history. Or as history.

As history, Jonah's "Whale Tale" teaches that God has different purposes for His revelation at various points in history. The first would be to teach the people of Israel not to be smug about the fact that they were the elect. It shows a prophet and presumably a people with so small a concern for souls of men everywhere, that there is unhappiness in the thought of the people of great Nineveh, Babylonians, repenting and gaining favor with the God of Jacob, Isaac, and Israel. I think that message is accepted with less difficulty by people in our global society, and even by Christian disciples at the time of Christ when they readily received God's message to spread out from Judea and Samaria and into the uttermost parts of the earth with the Word.

But the principle message was prophetic and would not have occurred in the minds of the Jewish people, or even the human author of the Book of Jonah in all probability. Jesus Himself gives us a legitimate interpretation of the story which had no historical meaning whatever, that His death and resurrection were symbolized in the story of Jonah, even down to three days and nights. The Holy Ghost certainly writes the books with the view to a pressing present need. For that reason, as with any literature, there is a fundamental meaning which involves whatever the human instrument was trying to say. Any symbolic interpretation that obscures or conflicts with this meaning cannot be acceptable. But we must admit that we never know if the human authors fully grasped the meanings of words as they would later be understood.

I don't know for sure, but I fear that my understanding forces me to be a bit of a presentist. I too, would rather be the preservationist. How about my cake and eat it too? We need to diligently avoid assuming that there is only one way of understanding God's words.

The various clever but conflicting ways Scripture can be interpreted are a never ending source of wonder to me. That is why I am virtually always ready to grant that an opposing Bible interpretation makes sense. I cannot relate to the cries of "absurd", or "ridiculous" that I hear so often coming from zealous Bible students who think there is only one correct and clever understanding of God's Words. All they need to do is find any one clever interpretation and it HAS to be the correct one. I am as convinced that there are multiple clever and plausible ways of interpreting Scripture as I am convinced of any biographical fact that I know about myself. But which plausible interpretation is the true? To whom should we look for authentic interpretations? Everyone? No one? Not me! So who if not ourselves?

Edited July 29, 2012 by 3DOP

[mfbukowski]

I like his manner of reasoning in that he seems to cover both the here and now of Bible interpretation as a means of it being timeless relative to the ability of the reader to find valuable guidance regardless of the era in which the reader lives. However, he also seems to build upon the great value of knowing the times and manner of the people to whom the text is directed.

Attempting to find and understand both sides of that coin is immensely valuable and the one perspective of now only illustrates the nature of how an eternal round flows between what is past and what is yet to come. Still since time is something measured only unto man I believe I tend to be more tolerant of a presentism approach to scripture interpretation than your author and as such consider true scripture understanding timeless in application if the reasonable balancing interpretations and symbolic implications are applied.

As well, I believe we are in agreement, if I have understood your perspective correctly, that once one comprehends the culture and implications to the people to whom the scriptures were written and embraces scriptures personal meaning to the individual in the present we are then well equipped to strip the "them" and the "me" of our understanding away to finally have left the purest principle of "His" meaning that crosses all boundaries, all cultures and is best understood as it applies to all men everywhere.

I'd be curious on how this relates to your views on Kabbalah.

I have trouble understanding how non-Hebrew speakers can benefit from writings so completely culturally Hebrew.

Just wondering!

[mfbukowski]

I mostly agree with your comments, but why I champion the historical over the presentist method is that the scriptures have more to teach me when I listen to what they are saying, rather than glancing into a reflecting mirror. Historical contexts helps cut to the essence of the passage, out of which I can draw lessons for my life. Not that misinterpration doesn't lead to spiritual insights, because it can too, but in an ideal world, give me the past and let the future follow.

On the other hand, I think that we cannot escape presentism. We can try, but I think the attempt is ultimately futile.

After all, I came up under the influence of Marshall McLuhan though perhaps that view itself is now seen as from a culture long gone http://en.wikipedia...._is_the_message

Studying Kabbalah on the computer has to present some disconnects somewhere. I mean I want the inflections and and passion and bad breath of some old rabbi pouring his soul into the explanation, out of some musty old parchment- not an electronically transmitted diagram!

I mean how much does staging affect the play?

I see the temple ceremonies and scripture as an opportunity to take the metaphors of the past and re-create them anew, each of us creating our own new vocabularies and understandings.

It's not that we disagree, I think, it is just that I think we each place importance on different parts of the continuum of a description of the function of hermeneutics

Just stirrin' the pot!

Edited July 29, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I agree that consideration of historical context is certainly valuable, but we also need to remember that "historical context" is subjective and at risk of misinterpretation as well. volgadon, I believe you said elsewhere recently that history is not " facts," but rather "the interpretation of facts."

See now there you go agreeing with me again even before I post! See how you are?!!

[Evangeline]

Hey, thanks mfbukowski! I needed that today. It's good to know I'm not always out to lunch.

[Calm]

God was communicating man in language man could relate to and understand. To ignore the historical context in favour of the universal is to distort the message and miss the point.

I very much agree with this.

I happen to look at the scriptures as potentially being able to give us infinite messages. First is the one intended by the original author, where he is sharing to the best of his ability what the Spirit shared with him in his place and time. And for that we need to learn who the author is to the best of our ability, including the world he is surrounded by and how he looked at it.

But reading the scriptures can also set off trains of thought that the Spirit can then make use of for teaching me something 'brand new' in my place and time. And this may be a different something each time I read the same verse.

The mistake is in thinking that my personal experience with the Spirit for a particular verse at a particular time is the identical one to anyone else's experience, especially the original experience that led to the author's writing. Also it would be a mistake to think that because at times I do not have to fully aware of my own 'historical context' that I can safely ignore the author's context to understand his message. My dipping into the scriptures to trigger trains of thought is a completely different approach to the revelation that took place for the author and if I equate the methods, I fail in understanding.

Not only that, but the Lord instructs us to study, ponder and pray when we approach him whether through prayer or scripture (or anything else) so if I choose to approach the scriptures all the time by the 'dipping' method, I am failing in making full use of them as well as lacking in obedience to God's instructions on how to work with them.

Edited July 29, 2012 by calmoriah

[volgadon]

I agree that consideration of historical context is certainly valuable, but we also need to remember that "historical context" is subjective and at risk of misinterpretation as well. volgadon, I believe you said elsewhere recently that history is not " facts," but rather "the interpretation of facts."

I did say that. Lists of dates and names are important, but not as important as deed and events, their import, their interplay, their influence. Of course we are never going to reach a perfect knowledge and understanding in this life, but we can get close. The key is to constantly seek and inquire after the meaning of the past.

[volgadon]

You referenced D&C 1 and I find vs 17 and 18 significant: "Wherefore, I the Lord, knowing the calamity which should come upon the inhabitants of the earth, called upon my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and spake unto him from heaven, and gave him commandments; And also gave commandments to others, that they should proclaim these things unto the world; and all this that it might be fulfilled, which was written by the prophets—" So yes the BOM is a warning not just to Joseph's day or our day or a future generation but to all people who find themselves being prideful and turning away from the commandments of God.

Deborah, great post. I agree that the BoM is a voice of warning. Would we bother reading the BoM in church, had it nothing to teach us? The greatest lessons, though, are found by understanding the story Mormon was telling, then applying the lessons to our lives.

[volgadon]

I very much agree with this.

I happen to look at the scriptures as potentially being able to give us infinite messages. First is the one intended by the original author, where he is sharing to the best of his ability what the Spirit shared with him in his place and time. And for that we need to learn who the author is to the best of our ability, including the world he is surrounded by and how he looked at it.

But reading the scriptures can also set off trains of thought that the Spirit can then make use of for teaching me something 'brand new' in my place and time. And this may be a different something each time I read the same verse.

The mistake is in thinking that my personal experience with the Spirit for a particular verse at a particular time is the identical one to anyone else's experience, especially the original experience that led to the author's writing. Also it would be a mistake to think that because at times I do not have to fully aware of my own 'historical context' that I can safely ignore the author's context to understand his message. My dipping into the scriptures to trigger trains of thought is a completely different approach to the revelation that took place for the author and if I equate the methods, I fail in understanding.

Not only that, but the Lord instructs us to study, ponder and pray when we approach him whether through prayer or scripture (or anything else) so if I choose to approach the scriptures all the time by the 'dipping' method, I am failing in making full use of them as well as lacking in obedience to God's instructions on how to work with them.

Superb post, once again. I am thinking that I might as well throw out a topic and let you post for me, as you get the point across far better. =)

The 'dipping' method is great, I've used it myself, a catalyst for further teachings, but I've never felt as satisfied as when I've tried to understand the context. Maybe it is just me, but the lessons I draw from studying the context seem deeper.

[Calm]

Superb post, once again. I am thinking that I might as well throw out a topic and let you post for me, as you get the point across far better. =)

The 'dipping' method is great, I've used it myself, a catalyst for further teachings, but I've never felt as satisfied as when I've tried to understand the context. Maybe it is just me, but the lessons I draw from studying the context seem deeper.

You are way too kind, sir.

[volgadon]

As history, Jonah's "Whale Tale" teaches that God has different purposes for His revelation at various points in history. The first would be to teach the people of Israel not to be smug about the fact that they were the elect. It shows a prophet and presumably a people with so small a concern for souls of men everywhere, that there is unhappiness in the thought of the people of great Nineveh, Babylonians, repenting and gaining favor with the God of Jacob, Isaac, and Israel. I think that message is accepted with less difficulty by people in our global society, and even by Christian disciples at the time of Christ when they readily received God's message to spread out from Judea and Samaria and into the uttermost parts of the earth with the Word.

But the principle message was prophetic and would not have occurred in the minds of the Jewish people, or even the human author of the Book of Jonah in all probability. Jesus Himself gives us a legitimate interpretation of the story which had no historical meaning whatever, that His death and resurrection were symbolized in the story of Jonah, even down to three days and nights. The Holy Ghost certainly writes the books with the view to a pressing present need. For that reason, as with any literature, there is a fundamental meaning which involves whatever the human instrument was trying to say. Any symbolic interpretation that obscures or conflicts with this meaning cannot be acceptable. But we must admit that we never know if the human authors fully grasped the meanings of words as they would later be understood.

The sign of Jonah figures as a type of Christ, which is, I think, what you are saying. Seeing the typology is a different animal than reading it as thought it were written by a modern, for a modern, Western audience. As Florovsky said, typology is "always an historical symbol which directs attention to future events."

[mfbukowski]

Superb post, once again. I am thinking that I might as well throw out a topic and let you post for me, as you get the point across far better. =)

The 'dipping' method is great, I've used it myself, a catalyst for further teachings, but I've never felt as satisfied as when I've tried to understand the context. Maybe it is just me, but the lessons I draw from studying the context seem deeper.

I know. Calmoriah is amazingly good at that. I have often thought the same thing.

I think the full context is never completely reachable but for me I often find in retrospect that that what I "discover" from studying the context was not part of the original context at all but my own re-creating of my imagined "original context" and that it is the level of my immersion and the re-construction of my imagined context which gives the experience its sense of depth.

We are taught that, as teachers, we should encourage discussion in our classes in order to stimulate dialogue and that in turn invites the Spirit into the class. I think the reason seeking the original context can feel so profound is that it is like a dialogue with ourselves in which we are pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps as it were in creating a new understanding and creating our own context which combines elements of the original with our own new insights as influenced by the spirit.

But I am sure Calmoriah could have said that in about 7 words!

[ANACO]

Would a prophet, seer and revelator, be considered one using the fallacy of presentism?

"But a seer can know of things which are past, and also of things which are to come, and by them shall all things be revealed"

Was Paul using presentism?

"There here hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man."

What of King Benjamin who stated of Christ and his atonement.

"And the Lord God hath sent his holy prophets among all..even as though he had already come among them."

In contrast to modern-day Apostles and Prophets who speak of the atonement of Christ of having occurred? Is that presentism?

If the gospel was the same in the past as it is today, why the claim of presentism?

Wouldn't this be similar to claiming a prophet, seer and revelator doesn't know the past?

Just as much as claiming a prophet doesn't know of things to come? (Jacob 7:7).

just random thoughts.

Regards.

[volgadon]

Would a prophet, seer and revelator, be considered one using the fallacy of presentism?

"But a seer can know of things which are past, and also of things which are to come, and by them shall all things be revealed"

Was Paul using presentism?

"There here hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man."

What of King Benjamin who stated of Christ and his atonement.

"And the Lord God hath sent his holy prophets among all..even as though he had already come among them."

In contrast to modern-day Apostles and Prophets who speak of the atonement of Christ of having occurred? Is that presentism?

If the gospel was the same in the past as it is today, why the claim of presentism?

Wouldn't this be similar to claiming a prophet, seer and revelator doesn't know the past?

Just as much as claiming a prophet doesn't know of things to come? (Jacob 7:7).

just random thoughts.

Regards.

None of those examples have anything to with presentism.