Reading the Old Testament is an exercise . . .

[Zakuska]

Apparently, mark Twain had been reading the OT:

It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.

--Mark Twain

[consiglieri]

Wow!

Those were some quotes, Zak.

Thanks for sharing.

The funny part is when Bible-believing Christians quote Twain against the Book of Mormon.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Zakuska]

The funny part is when Bible-believing Christians quote Twain against the Book of Mormon.

That it is.

[SilverKnight]

Don't go too far, Aragorn.

We've still got the rest of the year in GD class.

Which is why I'll be down the hall teaching Gospel Principles.

[divinenature]

It only gets worse.

Rapists purchasing their victims, virgins as spoils of war, odd cursed magic potion to divine wicked wives, human sacrifice, it goes on and on.

It is a lot of exercise! I got so tired I had to stop in Judges.

[sunstoned]

Apparently, mark Twain had been reading the OT:

Very interesting quotes. Most of which I agree with. I take the OT for what it is: an ancient desert tribe justifying their actions, which are often time brutal, by claiming sanction by their deity.

[Mighty Curelom]

Very interesting quotes. Most of which I agree with. I take the OT for what it is: an ancient desert tribe justifying their actions, which are often time brutal, by claiming sanction by their deity.

So then you would disagree with the statement "We believe the Bible to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly"?

[David T]

So then you would disagree with the statement "We believe the Bible to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly"?

For me, there is much in the Old Testament - namely the writings of the Prophets - which I do believe (for the most part) accurately present the recording of the word and will of God. There is also much in the OT which are histories written by un-disclosed parties who never claimed inspiration, and seem to have a revisionist political agenda. There's much to learn there, and I find it fascinating, but I don't feel the need to cling that it's all from-God's-mouth-to-my-Bible Revelation.

[volgadon]

"Why do we hate the Moabites, son? You do know where they came from, right? Let me tell you the story of the one time Lot's daughters got him drunk..."

I don't really buy that, as the story of their origins is not painted in a negative light. Lot was free of any guilt and his daughters slept with him for the sole purpose of continuing his line.

[volgadon]

Rapists purchasing their victims

I assume you mean Shechem and Dinah? A close look at the text seems to indicate that this wasn't rape, but seduction, and that they both cared for each other.

virgins as spoils of war,

Shameful incident, but why wasn't it considered so by the Israelites? Because they were preserving a tribe. Never mind that it was they who nearly destroyed them....

[zeezrom]

The question I have is since there is weird stuff in the OT that we dismiss either from mistranslation or from some other error, how do you know the nice things are true?

divinenature says,

It only gets worse.

Rapists purchasing their victims, virgins as spoils of war, odd cursed magic potion to divine wicked wives, human sacrifice, it goes on and on.

It is a lot of exercise! I got so tired I had to stop in Judges.

Should we throw that out?

Sunstoned says,

I take the OT for what it is: an ancient desert tribe justifying their actions, which are often time brutal, by claiming sanction by their deity.

Should we throw that out?

Mighty Curelom asks,

So then you would disagree with the statement "We believe the Bible to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly"?

What parts are not translated correctly? Should we find them and throw them out?

Nackhadlow says,

For me, there is much in the Old Testament - namely the writings of the Prophets - which I do believe (for the most part) accurately present the recording of the word and will of God.

I trust you when you say you believe them. Should we keep those things you believe?

In conclusion, I guess we keep the things that fit in the grand puzzle of Mormon Doctrine. We keep Abraham despite the fact that he had concubines. Do we accept his concubines as a good thing? According to D&C we do. Do we keep the virgins as spoils of war? I don't think so.

[Jason]

"And Ben Kenobi did find a criminal, a smuggler, to carry them and their talking machines to Alderaan. And when they reached Alderaan it was not, and they entered the fortress of Tarkin and did slay many of his men, and did rescue Luke's sister from their father. And Vader their father was wroth, and did slay Ben Kenobi. And Luke was wroth, and did lead his men against the fortress of Tarkin, and they did kill all of the men of the fortress, and did utterly lay it waste. Yet Vader escaped."

"And Vader was wroth, and did send his men against the Alliance. And they tore down the fortress of Hoth. And he turned the smuggler's allies against him, and captured his daughter and entombed the smuggler. And Luke was wroth, and fought his father with the sword, and his father struck off his hand. Yet Luke escaped."

"And the daughter of Vader did save the smuggler from his tomb, and killed the sheik Jabba who had imprisoned him and all his men. And Luke did confront his father again, and struck off his hand with the sword. And Vader his father did throw his master the Emperor down the reactor shaft, and did ask his son's forgiveness. And Luke freely forgave his father, and he died. And Luke built a pyer for his father, and burned his body, yet he knew that his father had been saved, for he saw his spirit standing next to Kenobi."

An accurate summary, yet missing a whole lot of context that would let you understand things like why they were fighting in the first place. And whole characters, like Yoda. This is what I feel reading the Old Testament is like.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Just my two cents -

I have enjoyed teaching the Old Testament so far this year. I have enjoyed it a great deal. These are classic stories. And as classics, they are embedded in a historical context, they have been formed, and reformed by scribes, by translators, by entire traditions of interpretation. And yet they are kept alive by ever new inquiries and readers. And every time we read them, they force us to think again and to reevaluate our understanding of the texts and our understanding of ourselves.

We all come to these texts with pre-understandings. And its not just that we have a pre-understanding of each of these stories - particularly when the narrative is provocative or difficult - we have certain personal questions, we have our opinions, we have responses to the stories, and expectations, and even desires and fears and hopes.

But, when we really engage the texts - when we dialogue with them, sometimes we can question our pre-understanding and we get surprised with alternatives that recast not only the text but how we see ourselves.

This last Sunday I taught the story of the Aqedah. And I did so in the context of two alternating sets of dialogue - and two sacrifices. One in which man tests God, where Hagar places her child under a bush in the wilderness to die - even though God had made a covenant with her to make him the father of countless descendants, and to inherit the land with his brothers. In the other God tests man, and Abraham leads Isaac up to the altar where miraculously a Ram is provided. And you know what, the only character in that entire story that we feel entirely comfortable with is that ram. After all, from the moment he appears, we all know what his end will be, and we approve. But the real questions come back to us - what is it that we leave under a bush in the wilderness, and what are we going to offer on an altar on the side of Mt. Moriah, and what do we do when we get there, and find no Ram caught in the brush?

Ben M.

[staccato]

When my children were young (under 14) we did a lot of scripture reading in our home. The Old Testament, however, was off limits. I refused to read it to my children. Content inappropriate.

[zeezrom]

But the real questions come back to us - what is it that we leave under a bush in the wilderness, and what are we going to offer on an altar on the side of Mt. Moriah, and what do we do when we get there, and find no Ram caught in the brush?

I like this. Our instructor often uses the stories as symbolic parables applied to our current situations.

When we do this, we tend to distance ourselves from the story as fact - as something that actually happened to real people that have human feelings just like us. No, they are not living in the 21st century but they are still humans like us with the same basic functions and feelings. At some point, we may decide it is important to ask whether or not the story actually happened the way it is portrayed - especially if that story bears significance on our current doctrine.

[volgadon]

When my children were young (under 14) we did a lot of scripture reading in our home. The Old Testament, however, was off limits. I refused to read it to my children. Content inappropriate.

I've been reading it for myself since I was 6.

[Benjamin McGuire]

One thing to consider though, Zeezrom, is that these are usually one sided stories - because they aren't intended as history per se. Take the Aqedah. There is a very old tradition in the Mishnah that it happened when Isaac was 37 (not 13 or 14). And that it was the cause of Sarah's death. So a more recent retelling of that event occurs in this poem:

And the life

Of Sara was

A hundred years. Twenty years. Seven years.

And she died -

She departed from the world in the Mount of Hebron

To the pattering of the servants' feet.

Whose names she even forgot.

All the friends of the family came to the funeral.

They shouldered her coffin.

To the place of her last rest.

Its planks, a rumor fell there, were the thinnest of the thin

The lightest of light.

And the life of Sara was

A hundred years. Twenty years. Seven years.

The years of Sara's life.

And she died -

But really,

The candle of her light went out many days, many before

Her last resting place was dust.

And the coffin she lay in was made of all the years,

The memory of wood broken on another mount,

On another mount, in the Land of Moriah.

On one hand, we can talk about this being about real people and real places and real events - but that historical background is still, as I noted, buried in the formation and reformation by scribes, in translations, and in thousands of years of interpretation. And you don't get the story itself freed from any of these issues. You have to take all of it. We tend to applaud Abraham's willingness to do something so horrible, so terrible, that we ourselves are not allowed to contemplate it. Abraham was asked to do what no one before or since ought to contemplate doing. And if we say that Abraham was righteous for it, then what do we tell the little boy who has to contemplate whether or not his father would take him up the side of the mountain as a sacrifice.

Part of it is that our reading is so pre-determined by our own context. There are other ways to read this text. Yizhar wrote in 1958 about the War of Liberation:

There is no evading the akedah. It only seems you could leave everything and run; you cannot ... I hate our father Abraham, who binds Isaac. What right does he have over Isaac? Let him bind himself. I hate the God who sent him and closed all paths, leaving only that of the akedah. I hate the fact that Isaac serves merely as a test between Abraham and his God ... The sanctification of God in the akedah, I hate. To kill the sons for a test of love! To use power and interfere and take life to make a point by force. And the world that stood still and did not cry out: Villains, why must the sons die.

Just before the Six Day War, Yariv Ben Aharon wrote this:

Is it not the way of the world that a son buries his father? Nature kills by natural death, and the son only buries. And do not fathers bind and sacrifice their sons on the altar of war, as if seeking to evade their own sentence? Should not a father die for his ideals? Is it not my duty to bury him before he buries me? I mean, before his ideals are realized?

And later:

... in refusing to accept Isaac's sacrifice, God is saying: I do not want you to become immortal by sacrificing your son!

Very different ways to look at this - I think that we have trouble with these stories because of what we want to get out of them (which has very little, if anything at all, to do with why they are there in the first place).

I think that one risk we have is the violence we are capable of when we read the text in certain ways - and one thing for certain is that we need to offer up our interpretations on the altar as a sacrifice on Mount Moriah. And if we are willing to do that, then perhaps we find the ram in the bushes.

[Zakuska]

You can always use this story as a object lesson in FHE to keep the kids obedient...

2 Kings 6

24

[volgadon]

I like this. Our instructor often uses the stories as symbolic parables applied to our current situations.

When I taught lesson 9 on Sunday I did just that. Th Abraham Cycle, which has beend derided by some on this board, is crucial to understanding one's own Akedah.

[Lightbearer]

In teaching the first half (so far) of Genesis in Gospel Doctrine, and listening to the comments from class members, I am beginning to think that, for many, reading the Old Testament is an exercise in justifying bad behavior.

By this, I mean that a great deal of energy and creativity goes into seeking to excuse the actions of Old Testament luminaries; actions that would be condemned, or at least frowned upon, in contemporary Mormon society.

And we haven't even gotten to Genesis 34 yet.

Any thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

The Old Testament is a difficult book, indeed it is hard to understand (not just the writings of Isaiah) and often we can get lost in the "unsanitized" version that the Jews apparently reveled in. I often wonder if some of the "problems" found therein are really accounts that are inspired or perhaps some of the "Biblical trash" that was included so that people may try to excuse their own sins? Perhaps the brief accounts we have do not do justice to the reality of the situation. Or perhaps the Jews added things so that people would "stumble" and think God is an unkind, wicked tyrant instead of a kind loving Father. I have wondered if the following had this in mind:

(Jacob 4:14) "But behold, the Jews were a stiffnecked people; and they despised the words of plainness, and killed the prophets, and sought for things that they could not understand. Wherefore, because of their blindness, which blindness came by looking beyond the mark, they must needs fall; for God hath taken away his plainness from them, and delivered unto them many things which they cannot understand, because they desired it. And because they desired it God hath done it, that they may stumble."

Maybe this "lack of plainness" or "things they could not understand" was not only the poetic forms and symbolism of some of the prophets, what if things were reported that the excuse machine would be at full tilt. I suspect many of the stories that report bad behavior on the part of spiritual men who were "just in all their days" were additions to "humanize" the prophets, much as our enemies today want us to report hearsay and "unsanitized history" to bring the modern prophets "down a notch" to justify their own behavior. That is my take on the "hard parts" of the Old Testament. I think all the scriptures demand we look at them with the "eye of faith" and not with doubtful hearts and a faultfinding manner that is similar to today's "Gossip magazines/shows" which seeks the lurid details of famous people's lives. Now I am not saying that all of these prophets were perfect men, we all are men and women of like passions. But I do not believe they were as viciously evil as some who interpret the Old Testament paint them to have been. I think if one wants to find fault they will find it, just as those who seek to find faith will also find it.

[krose]

I think it was an unfortunate decision that the early Christians made to include the Hebrew bible (also the Revelation of John) in the compilation that became the traditional Bible. I see little of value there, and much of the evil that has been done in the name of religion is justified using the OT.

The stories and teachings of Jesus and the apostles should have been sufficient as Christian scripture, and the world would have been better off. Of course those books should be read to gain a historical perspective, but not necessarily revered as holy scripture.

[volgadon]

I think it was an unfortunate decision that the early Christians made to include the Hebrew bible (also the Revelation of John) in the compilation that became the traditional Bible. I see little of value there

I strongly disagree.

[Ariarates]

I think the OT is a horrible collection of the most awful and infantile fairy tales ever committed to writing.

That said, I do like Ecclesiates very much. I used to like Job as well but I have a hard time following the official unofficial LDS position proclaimed by General Authorities speaking as men and in manuals which aren't really doctrine that Job was a real person. As a kid, I loved the story of Joseph and read it often. Guess I identified with the hero :-)

I agree with the OP that the OT takes too much justification to be worth the effort. Toss it out! D&C forever (my personal favourite scripture)!

[sleepyhead]

In teaching the first half (so far) of Genesis in Gospel Doctrine, and listening to the comments from class members, I am beginning to think that, for many, reading the Old Testament is an exercise in justifying bad behavior.

By this, I mean that a great deal of energy and creativity goes into seeking to excuse the actions of Old Testament luminaries; actions that would be condemned, or at least frowned upon, in contemporary Mormon society.

And we haven't even gotten to Genesis 34 yet.

Any thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Hello consig,

My interpretation is that God stood up for these men and women because they were willing to place themselves in harmsway by speaking to the powers that be, what was, or what they believed to be God's word. That is/was the basis for him choosing to support anyone.

you>>>More like Adam, Eve, Noah, Abraham, Lot, Sarah, Isaac, Rebekah, Jacob, Laban, and pretty much all Jacob's 12-sons (Judah gets special mention) with the possible exception of Joseph.<<<

Going through the list I'm not sure why you included Adam and eve. Noah tried for many years to tell the people to repent leaving him open for ridicule. According to the book of Jasher Abraham was placed in a fierry furnace for destroying his fathers false gods. Lot risked his life to save the two visitors by offering to let them stay in his home. When Sarah was taken as a concubine she obeyed her husband and prayed to God for protection. Isaac knew it was Abrahams plan to offer him as a sacrifice. He didn't object to being sacrificed because he knew it was God's will for him. I'm not sure why you have Rebekah, Jacob and Laban on your list.

With regards to the 12 sons of Jacob, let's assume that either the LDS belief in the preexistence or my belief in reincarnation is correct. In either case God would have some foreknowledge with regards to the tendencies of each individual. This doesn't necesarily indicate that there good qualities are going to be apparent during their yourger years. Using Judah as an example, when they were in Egypt, and Joseph threatened to keep Benjamin from returning, it was Judah who stood up and asked Joseph to take him instead of Benjamin. I might add here that it was at that moment that all the hadred Joseph had for his brothers dissipated, and that the messiah was a descendent of his tribe.

[volgadon]

That is/was the basis for him choosing to support anyone.

If you reject the non-bilical accounts of Abraham, where do we see that?